rimantas at gmail.com
Wed Oct 14 00:23:18 PDT 2009
> So it does not answer the question: if framesets are as you claim not needed
> for the full spec, there should be lots of non-frameset sites which meet
> this spec as efficiently as ours does.
Maybe there are not many sites because nobody wants this type of sites?
I hate this type of documentation sites personally.
And to me this use case looks built around the chosen implementation,
while I prefers solutions built around solving the real need.
> If that blocks a use case, by all means don't use a frameset for it. For
> this use, the above poses no problem at all. And if CSS were actually as
> efficient for this spec as framesets, surely some developers would have
> taken advantage of that by now.
Once again you assume that your spec is highly desired. Maybe it is not
the case and so nobody bothered.
> No need in this case.
> Not an issue for this use.
So you want HTML5 spec tailored for this particular case of yours?
Can I have <dancinghampsters> tag, please?
> Here's an application for framesets which is valid on previous versions of
Nobody forbids you from using previous versions of HTML.
> meets a need, is more efficient than known implemented alternatives
> for this use case,
You have framed (pardon the pun) this use case this way and reject all
other options. Once again—you can use HTML4.01 frameset document
with HTML5 documents loaded to frames. This was suggested more
> and does not suffer from any of the frameset deficiencies
> you have listed.
> Framesets remain useful, excluding them from HTML5
> undermines support for those uses, and that weakens HTML5.
I'd argue that it strengthens HTML5.
More information about the whatwg