<!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">
<pre wrap="">>So why <b class="moz-txt-star"><span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>are<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>
>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
-----</pre>
<br>
<br>
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:7c2a12e20910091213j6eb23fd1xf6ec2e0d48a75e5e@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Peter Brawley <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pb@artfulsoftware.com"><pb@artfulsoftware.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pb@artfulsoftware.com"><pb@artfulsoftware.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It's not your brief to decide what's beneficial for a client.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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."
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/"><http://www.w3.org/Consortium/></a> That includes prohibiting things it
considers harmful.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">You are arguing for imposing one way of doing things. Ugh.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bzbarsky@mit.edu"><bzbarsky@mit.edu></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I don't see how they wouldn't. Everything you can accomplish with
<frameset> and <frame> you can do with <iframe> plus gobs of javascript to
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...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
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?</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>