[whatwg] framesets

[Peter Brawley]

Boris,

 > use cases that the W3C wants to discourage ...

That W3C mindset promotes no greater good; it just imposes an idea of 
what use cases should and shouldn't specify. Might as wellwrite popuo 
removal into HTML5.

 > The use cases can still be addressed with <iframe> and a bit of pain 
if resizing is desired, as far as I can tell. 

I quoted Andrew Fedoniouk 
(http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010186.html), 
"There are use cases when frames are good. As an example: online (and 
offline) help systems ...  In such cases they provide level of usability 
higher than any other method of presenting content of such type."

I've not seen a counterexample. Have you?

 >So this is all about assuming that the bit of pain will be enough of 
an inconvenience
 >for authors that they will either address the use case in some way not 
involving iframes
 >at all (and which presumably has a lower pain threshild; what is this 
way?)

As above, no-one seems able to point to a non-frameset solution.

 >or not address
 >the use case at all (unlikely, since they're being paid to address it). 

IMO money has no place in this discussion.

 > Since UAs must continue supporting framesets anyway, the reasoning 
behind removing them seems somewhat weak to me.

Yes.

PB

-----

Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 10/9/09 2:55 PM, Peter Brawley wrote:
>> Framesets are part of the current HTML standard and should remain.
>
> This isn't really a convincing argument.  There are various other 
> things that are part of HTML 4.01 that are worth removing and have 
> been removed.
>
> That said, I'm not sure why there's a worry about what's in the 
> standard given the 
> http://www.artfulsoftware.com/infotree/mysqlquerytree.php example 
> (which doesn't actually validate per the HTML 4.01 standard, since 
> it's missing a doctype).
>
> On a general note, though, the reasoning behind removing framesets 
> seems to be that they make it very easy to address specific authoring 
> use cases that the W3C wants to discourage, right?  The use cases can 
> still be addressed with <iframe> and a bit of pain if resizing is 
> desired, as far as I can tell.  So this is all about assuming that the 
> bit of pain will be enough of an inconvenience for authors that they 
> will either address the use case in some way not involving iframes at 
> all (and which presumably has a lower pain threshild; what is this 
> way?) or not address the use case at all (unlikely, since they're 
> being paid to address it).  Since UAs must continue supporting 
> framesets anyway, the reasoning behind removing them seems somewhat 
> weak to me.
>
> -Boris
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 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...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20091009/b4a9309e/attachment-0002.htm>