Re: A proposal for addition to HTML 3.0: Frames

From: mogens@Mjosa.Stanford.edu (Christian Mogensen)
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 19:19:28 EDT 
> Frame Document
> 
> A Frame Document has a basic structure very much like your normal
> HTML document, except the BODY container is replaced by a FRAMESET 
> container which describes the sub-HTML documents, or Frames, that 
> will make up the page.
> 
> 
> <HTML>
> <HEAD>
> </HEAD>
> <FRAMESET>
> </FRAMESET>
> </HTML>
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> <NOFRAMES>
> 
> This tag is for content providers who want to create alternative
> content that is viewable by non-Frame-capable clients. A 
> Frame-capable Internet client ignores all tags and data between 
> start and end
> NOFRAMES tags.


Ok, why not just forget <NOFRAMES> and use <BODY> instead?  That way it is
backwards compatible with existing browsers, which do not grok frames.
Frames compatible browsers can simply ignore the <BODY> section in a document
containing <FRAME>s. 

This is/was part of the thinking behind <FIG>....</FIG>

On the whole I like it, and it's clear that you have learned alot since
your previous demo implementation (The table thing).  Your attributes seem
better specified, although a DTD would have been nice...

Still, I can't help thinking that FRAMEs are really DIV and/or
FIG with some different syntax and added semantics.


I am curious as to how this affects URLs - i.e how do you refer to another
transcluded document? 

e.g: ROOT.html contains 
   <FRAMESET>
   <Frame SRC="Foo.html" NAME="A">
   <Frame SRC="Bar.html" NAME="B">
   </FRAMESET>

Do links in Foo.html then refer to "Bar.html", ROOT.html#B or what?
i.e. I have a list of links in A that I want to load into B (the ToC 
scenario)...

Christian 'webhead'

Follow-ups