[whatwg] framesets

[Peter Brawley]

Eduard,

 >Everything that can be achieved with <frameset> can be done through
 ><table>+<iframe>.

If that's so, someone ought to be able to point at some examples.

Supposing that someone can produce examples, the argument for removing 
frames from HTML5 becomes: "frameset has been in HTML till now, /but is 
being removed because we do not like it/. If you insist on such use 
cases, re-architect them." That's a misuse of standards.

 >What'd be the point of keeping two sources of issues when one can be
 >enough to cover all use-cases?

If your premiss is correct, backward compatibility.

PB

------

Eduard Pascual wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Peter Brawley <pb at artfulsoftware.com> wrote:
>   
>>> 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.
>>
>> PB
>>     
>
> Both <frameset> and <iframe> are a source of several issues.
> Everything that can be achieved with <frameset> can be done through
> <table>+<iframe>.
> What'd be the point of keeping two sources of issues when one can be
> enough to cover all use-cases?
> Since <iframe> can handle all the use-cases for <frameset>, and some
> that <frameset> just can't, it's obvious which one to drop.
>
> Regards,
> Eduard Pascual
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 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/a2cc2dd7/attachment-0001.htm>