<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Thomas,<br>
<br>
>Framesets, iframes, AJAX+innerHTML all allow this; you can't present<br>
>this as an argument for frameset or against their removal (though,<br>
>actually, I think you didn't, and the discussion just wen this road<br>
<br>
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 <i>not</i> be externally linkable. The response that the
client ought not to want this is, well, beyond W3C's brief.<br>
<br>
>you could just use iframes too to the same effect,<br>
>except frame resizing, that would need some additional scripting;
did<br>
>I adequately describe your argument here?)<br>
<br>
I've been looking, but I've not seen an adequate iframe implementation
of this spec.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
PB<br>
<br>
-----<br>
<br>
<br>
Thomas Broyer wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:a9699fd20910091109h373da700t6a29134f686ea301@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Peter Brawley <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pb@artfulsoftware.com"><pb@artfulsoftware.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">A design goal of this use case is to isolate individual framed items from
URL back/forward/history.external linking. Analagous to watching a picture
show where selecting N pictures does not commit you to hitting the Back
button N times to get back out.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Why shouldn't it?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Because the use case demands otherwise.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It's how all other links work. Behavior should be consistent.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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
down.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Framesets, iframes, AJAX+innerHTML all allow this; you can't present
this as an argument for frameset or against their removal (though,
actually, I think you didn't, and the discussion just wen this road
while the use case you were showing is that clicking on a link in any
frame, that loads a new doc within this same frame doesn't have any
side effect on the other frames; for instance, you do not "lose" your
scroll position in the other frames, MSDN doesn't behave exactly the
same here; though you could just use iframes too to the same effect,
except frame resizing, that would need some additional scripting; did
I adequately describe your argument here?)
</pre>
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a>
Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.8/2425 - Release Date: 10/09/09 08:10:00
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>