[WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Tony Crockford wrote: Eh? if you use the frameset DTD then target is valid. you can't use frames in a valid way without the frameset DTD, so what are you talking about? time for me to drop out of this thread in sheer frustration. ;o) Hi Tony, AFAIK, the files that are used to make up the frameset (ie, the ones that appear in the browser) are 'ordinary' files which will not accept the frameset DTD. That is reserved for the frameset definition file, not it's components. It is in the component files that one would use the target attribute, and in these files 'target' is a no-no. Or have I been missing something? This is important to clear up and has nothing to do with the target discussion per se. I have used frames on one of my sites and I want to get this right! -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
It is in the component files that one would use the target attribute, and in these files 'target' is a no-no. Or have I been missing something? This is important to clear up and has nothing to do with the target discussion per se. I have used frames on one of my sites and I want to get this right! If you are set on using the TARGET attribute you will get it right by using a transitional DOCTYPE. Why would you want to choose a strict DOCTYPE when your document does not conform to the strict rules explained in the corresponding (X)HTML recommendation? Cheers, jens -- Jens Brueckmann http://www.yalf.de ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Designer wrote: Tony Crockford wrote: Eh? if you use the frameset DTD then target is valid. you can't use frames in a valid way without the frameset DTD, so what are you talking about? time for me to drop out of this thread in sheer frustration. ;o) Hi Tony, AFAIK, the files that are used to make up the frameset (ie, the ones that appear in the browser) are 'ordinary' files which will not accept the frameset DTD. That is reserved for the frameset definition file, not it's components. It is in the component files that one would use the target attribute, and in these files 'target' is a no-no. Or have I been missing something? This is important to clear up and has nothing to do with the target discussion per se. I have used frames on one of my sites and I want to get this right! okay, colour me confused. AIUI the frameset page has the doctype (using the frameset DTD) and the framed pages have no doctype at all and are included in the frameset by using frame src=leftside.html so why can't you use target_ in the framed pages? http://www.sitepoint.com/print/frames-frame-usage-explained is a good article... -- Join me: http://wiki.workalone.co.uk/ Thank me: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/registry/1VK42TQL7VD2F Engage me: http://www.boldfish.co.uk/portfolio/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
On 8/15/06, Tony Crockford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AIUI the frameset page has the doctype (using the frameset DTD) and the framed pages have no doctype at all and are included in the frameset by using frame src=leftside.html so why can't you use target_ in the framed pages? I think the point is that, while the frameset itself will have the frameset DTD, the framed pages do not - so if they are Strict, you can't use target to make links inside those pages open inside other frames within the same frameset. The upshot is you can't use Strict when using framesets. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Matthew Pennell wrote: The upshot is you can't use Strict when using framesets. well yes, I thought that was obvious? but I'm struggling to understand the problem. the framed pages have *no* doctype - what would make them strict? and why, when they are part of a frameset would you try and validate them against a strict DTD? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Tony Crockford wrote: the framed pages have *no* doctype - what would make them strict? and why, when they are part of a frameset would you try and validate them against a strict DTD? Why do the framed pages not have a doctype Tony? I can't see anywhere in the article you reference where this is stated. If you look at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/present/frames.html#h-16.3 you will see that the example 'framed' document (init_dynamic.html) is given an HTML 4.01 Transitional doctype. Whether it is an oversight in the spec or not it appears that target is only valid for a transitional doctype even when used in a frameset. This makes sense as there is nothing in the framed document that explicitly states that it should only be viewed as part of a frameset. I don't think this thread is going anywhere any more. Most, if not all, the people on this list are probably never going to use another frameset. If anyone does the answer is to use a transitional doctype for documents other than the frameset itself.Ian **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help**
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Designer wrote: No matter which way you look at it, it doesn't make sense. what doesn't make sense is why you would use a strict doctype for pages that are included in a frameset? if you have to use a doctype for the framed pages, use a transitional one and all will be valid and good... the whole point of the XHTML strict DTD is: XHTML 1.0 Strict - Use this when you want really clean structural mark-up, free of any markup associated with layout. Use this together with W3C's Cascading Style Sheet language(CSS) to get the font, color, and layout effects you want. http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/ ;o) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Designer wrote: The 'problem' is that you can use a strict xhtml frameset AND xhtml files and that's OK with the W3C recommendations - so why on earth have they done away with one of frames main uses/advantages, i.e., targetting one or more of the frames. No matter which way you look at it, it doesn't make sense. Sorry, but it makes perfect sense to keep Strict out of Frames. W3C haven't done away with anything since you still can use Transitional. They are just telling you (quite clearly) that you can't use a transitional solution: Frames and 'target', in combination with Strict. You are given a choice between standards: Transitional /or/ Strict. No need to mess them up and make them one and the same. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Tony Crockford wrote: Designer wrote: No matter which way you look at it, it doesn't make sense. what doesn't make sense is why you would use a strict doctype for pages that are included in a frameset? I'm just banging my head against the wall here! The reason I'd use a strict doctype in a frameset is the same reason I'd use one anywhere else. Why one earth anyone should think that a standards approach can be ignored because it's a frameset is just incredible. if you have to use a doctype for the framed pages, use a transitional one and all will be valid and good... Yes, I've known that for a long time now. the whole point of the XHTML strict DTD is: XHTML 1.0 Strict - Use this when you want really clean structural mark-up, free of any markup associated with layout. Use this together with W3C's Cascading Style Sheet language(CSS) to get the font, color, and layout effects you want. Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. So your point is? -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Designer wrote: XHTML 1.0 Strict - Use this when you want really clean structural mark-up, free of any markup associated with layout. Use this together with W3C's Cascading Style Sheet language(CSS) to get the font, color, and layout effects you want. Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. So your point is? but you're not are you? you're using an inaccessible frameset when the same purely visual effect can be done in a more accessible way using CSS. if you want strict and a framed effect do it with CSS instead of frames and then all users can access all your content. instead of asking for target in strict (an inaccessible frameset attribute) and asking us to justify why you can't have it, why don't you justify the use of frames, when all they are is a visual effect that can be achieved with CSS. ;o) -- Join me: http://wiki.workalone.co.uk/ Thank me: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/registry/1VK42TQL7VD2F Engage me: http://www.boldfish.co.uk/portfolio/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Designer wrote: I'm getting fed up with this. You still haven't told me WHY it makes perfect sense! Why, that is, the W3C have decided that using a target is undesirable, ultimately. I have no idea why W3C decide anything, but they have made some decisions and written the standards accordingly. I may suggest: 1: Target has been misused to such a degree that some browser-makers have added defenses against it. Most browser-makers are members of W3C. 2: Target isn't working too well on all of today's (and tomorrow's) software and devices. Plenty of confusion around on that subject. If you are using a frameset, it's highly likely that you'll want to make use of the target facility. Yes, you can do it using transitional, but the very name 'transitional' implies that it's OK for now, but it won't be when you 'do it properly'. When you 'do it properly' you can't use target, even though you can use a frameset. A frameset _is_ a 'transitional' solution, so it _is_ only OK for now. Same with 'Transitional', so Frames and Transitional suits each others like hand and glove. There are no 'Strict Frames'. What is it about targetting that is so bad? I never called targeting bad, although I kill all targeting at my end (as a user). Targeting is a left-over from yesterday, so I guess it depends on where you want your designs to go is what matters when you decide whether to use targeting or not. And then you should use the proper doctype/standard. That's what those standards are there for. There will come other standards, and some may even be implemented across browser-land - one day. Maybe you'll get a suitable, and working, 'target' back in one of them. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Just an observation: While I'll agree that in certain situations frames are very inaccessible, their behavior cannot always be replaced with CSS. Why use frames, you ask??? Consider a web application (not a content site). My menu bar is fixed, maintains state, and I don't want it to reload every time the content frame reloads (thus saving bandwidth). Now, AJAX aside, CSS alone will not give you this. And as a writer of web applications (not sites), it frustrates me to no end that the W3C is abandoning useful features like these (and others)...I will admit that they have been wrongly used in the past, but is that any reason to get rid of them Just my $.02. Mike ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Michael Yeaney wrote: ...I will admit that they have been wrongly used in the past, but is that any reason to get rid of them If the user base no longer trusts the method, to the extent that pop-up blockers are marketed or given freely away, because of the misuse, does it make sense to continue using the method, rather than finding a new way of achieving your aim that respects your users' rights and sensibilities? Just my $0.02 +GST Mark Harris ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
Tony Crockford wrote: you're using an inaccessible frameset when the same purely visual effect can be done in a more accessible way using CSS. if you want strict and a framed effect do it with CSS instead of frames and then all users can access all your content. instead of asking for target in strict (an inaccessible frameset attribute) and asking us to justify why you can't have it, why don't you justify the use of frames, when all they are is a visual effect that can be achieved with CSS. My response: I have to use frames at work. The reason is that we produce learning resources which can be used on their own or put into courses which need some navigation for users to get around. Framesets cater to this perfectly. The left frame is used to show the navigation of the resources which appear in the right frame. We have users testing this (including using JAWS and Window Eyes screen readers) and none have ever said it is inaccessible. For us the benefit of using frames is that we do not have to produce multiple versions of the same resource. Downsides include * inability to bookmark a certain page * a frameset bug in IE when using XHTML transitional (see http://www.noscope.com/journal/2004/02/ie-horizontal-scrollbar-bug ) * inability to set frame borders with CSS Grant ** This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain privileged information or confidential information or both. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender. ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] correct markup for frames? : was [target=_blank]
If you need to use the target feature, use an apropriate doctype for that . To legate systems, sometimes you must use a transitional or even a loose doctype The feature (for some :) is still there I guess this is my point - what about frames makes them 'unsuitable' (???) for XHTML If this trend continues, the only tags left will be DIV and SPANwho needs tables??? As for using a loose / transitional doctype, I'd rather not - that sort of defeats the purpose... Very frustrating Mike ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
