pb at artfulsoftware.com
Fri Oct 9 11:55:57 PDT 2009
>I don't see why that's beneficial.
It's not your brief to decide what's beneficial for a client.
>It conflicts with expected
It does not conflict with what these users expect.
> If you follow a link and then click "back", your
>link-following should be undone. You shouldn't be taken to a totally
>different page that you left half an hour ago.
You are arguing for imposing one way of doing things. Ugh.
>That's not how the W3C or the WHATWG or any standards bodies operate.
>If you want a feature in HTML5, you have to argue that it would help
>the web to support it, not just that some authors want it.
Framesets are part of the current HTML standard and should remain.
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Peter Brawley <pb at artfulsoftware.com> wrote:
>> It suggests no such thing. Your "suggestion", applied to surgery, would be
>> that primum non nocere implies surgery should never remove hurt or remove
>> useful tissue. The inference is overinclusive, to put it mildly. W3C's job
>> is to enable, not function like a commissariat.
> The W3C's and WHATWG's jobs are to make standards that promote the
> overall health of the web. This isn't always compatible with allowing
> all authors to do everything they want. To take a more clear-cut
> example, a lot of authors would like to be able to stop users from
> downloading videos. <video> deliberately doesn't try to support this
> use-case, because it's viewed as harmful. So those authors will have
> give up and allow it.
> Of course, no one actually has to follow the standards. You can still
> use frames. Your page just won't validate. If you think the W3C and
> WHATWG are commissariats, this shouldn't worry you, since all it says
> is your page doesn't follow what the W3C and/or WHATWG say.
>> These are not external links. You want these pages to make each item
>> externally linkable. The client does not. The client wins this debate hands
> That's not how the W3C or the WHATWG or any standards bodies operate.
> If you want a feature in HTML5, you have to argue that it would help
> the web to support it, not just that some authors want it. Your
> current arguments are very unlikely to get the spec changed (although
> I don't have any say in that).
> Users of a site using frames will have a worse experience, because
> features like link-sharing and bookmarking won't work. You've said
> that you would *like* these features not to work. Why, exactly? This
> kind of degradation needs to be justified.
>> Already explained. So that a user may enter and exit the frameset as one page
> I don't see why that's beneficial. It conflicts with expected
> behavior. If you follow a link and then click "back", your
> link-following should be undone. You shouldn't be taken to a totally
> different page that you left half an hour ago.
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Thomas Broyer <t.broyer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Framesets, iframes, AJAX+innerHTML all allow this; you can't present
>> this as an argument for frameset or against their removal
> I don't see how iframes would allow you to deliberately mess up
> navigation in the same way as frames do. AJAX would, and does, but
> that's a lot harder for authors to implement, so asking for an easier
> way seems legitimate.
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.8/2425 - Release Date: 10/09/09 08:10:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg