Re: A proposal for addition to HTML 3.0: Frames
||Joe English <firstname.lastname@example.org>
||Fri, 22 Sep 95 15:08:00 EDT
Christophe.Espert@der.edf.fr (Christophe ESPERT) wrote:
> email@example.com wrote:
> > A distinct MIME type and SGML document type seems like an awfully
> > good idea here.
> I agree completely with Dan and Chris on this. I think a new document type
> is a very interesting idea instead of botching up the HTML DTD with too
> many extensions.
A new document type with it's own PUBLIC identifier
is definitely a good idea, but I don't think a new
media type is.
FRAMES documents are (or at least can be made to be)
compatible with level 2 browsers; the <NOFRAMES> element
provides an alternate "starting point" or "hub",
and the frame subdocuments can be interpreted as level 2
HTML by ignoring the TARGET attribute on <A>.
Labelling FRAMES documents as something other than 'text/html' [*]
would defeat this entirely.
I think the approach Netscape has taken with <NOFRAMES> and
<NOEMBED> is, in principle, the right way to go when
adding new extensions.
> The presence of an SGML parser would also contribute a lot to the use
> of declaration subsets. [...]
I agree wholeheartedly.
[*] Or 'text/html; features="frames"' or whatever the
content-negotiation format is this week :-)