Re: A proposal for addition to HTML 3.0: Frames
||mogens@Mjosa.Stanford.edu (Christian Mogensen)
||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.
> 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
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
e.g: ROOT.html contains
<Frame SRC="Foo.html" NAME="A">
<Frame SRC="Bar.html" NAME="B">
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