pb at artfulsoftware.com
Fri Oct 9 13:17:37 PDT 2009
>So why *are*
>frames banned, if you can easily replace them with iframes and get the
>exact same lousy behavior? Because iframes also have less evil uses,
>and frames don't, I guess?
Designation of reasonable uses as "evil" is authoritarian nonsense.
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Peter Brawley <pb at artfulsoftware.com> wrote:
>> Right, the point is that the use case specifies tree navigation to be
>> entirely independent of navigation to and from the page, that tree and
>> detail subwindows be independently scrollable & resizable, and that tree
>> nodes not be externally linkable. The response that the client ought not to
>> want this is, well, beyond W3C's brief.
> This is actually the WHATWG list, not the W3C. But in any case, both
> organizations think it's completely appropriate for them to pressure
> authors to avoid bad features. I guess you can feel free to argue
> that they shouldn't, but I don't think you'll convince them.
>> I'm arguing that framesets have been part of HTML4, developers used them in
>> good faith, and removing them from HTML5 unfairly & arbitrarily imposes a
>> Hobson's choice of keeping existing functionality while foregoing new HTML5
>> functionality, or re-architecting existing functionality in order to use new
>> HTML5 functionality.
> You aren't *forced*. You can make a document that uses both frames
> and HTML5 features. It will work, it's just not valid HTML5.
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Peter Brawley <pb at artfulsoftware.com> wrote:
>> It's not your brief to decide what's beneficial for a client.
> As defined by who? For instance, the W3C's mission is "To lead the
> World Wide Web to its full potential by developing protocols and
> guidelines that ensure long-term growth for the Web."
> <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/> That includes prohibiting things it
> considers harmful.
>> You are arguing for imposing one way of doing things. Ugh.
> Well, yes. The WHATWG and W3C are standards bodies. Standards are,
> by definition, things that impose one way of doing things.
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote:
>> I don't see how they wouldn't. Everything you can accomplish with
>> make the drag-resizing work (probably badly, unlike the UA-provided resizing
>> for <frameset>), no? Oh, and more hacks to get the initial sizing right and
>> such, of course...
> Ah, I didn't understand how navigation in iframes works. So why *are*
> frames banned, if you can easily replace them with iframes and get the
> exact same lousy behavior? Because iframes also have less evil uses,
> and frames don't, I guess?
> 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