[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| Quite possibly. Personally, I would have been happier if they had
| not only changed frames, but also fixed the most broken aspects of
| them. Pages should ask to be wrapped in framesets, not the other
| way around.
* Emmanuil Batsis
|
| I dissagree. Inline inclusion of documents cannot be replaced by
| framesets and iframes provide a much better and predictable
| interface to ECMAScript and URLs pointing to e.g. images, than
| XInclude would ever will.
Quite possibly you do disagree, but from what you write it sounds as
though you missed the point I tried to make.
My main complaint about frames is that they break the URI-page
correspondence that is supposed to be the cornerstone of the web. That
is, on a site that uses frames no single URI can take you to the
correct configuration of frames that displays a page below the page
that sets up the frameset. The problem is that the framed pages have
no idea they are being framed, which means that if you try to link to
them they will just display without the frames.
The solution to this is to make the framed pages declare that they
belong to the frameset. That way you can link to them individuallye and
they will automatically set up the frameset around themselves so that
they display correctly. Admittedly this solution is far from perfect,
but then the whole frames idea is not very good to begin with.
As for what you say about scripting it is true that scripts use frames
a lot and tend to depend on them, but what I write above is about what
markup to use to create the frames, not about what the result looks
like to the scripting engine.
XInclude is in a way the opposite of what I'm talking about here.
--
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
|
