Re: A proposal for addition to HTML 3.0: Frames

From: Joe English <>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 95 15:08:00 EDT (Christophe ESPERT) wrote:

> 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.

--Joe English

    [*] Or 'text/html; features="frames"' or whatever the
    content-negotiation format is this week :-)