Rimantas,
>Maybe there are not many sites because nobody wants this type of sites?
You think nobody wants Javadoc? Javadoc has been shipping with an
read-only version of this use case for years.
The full use case is treeview database maintenance. Tree logic has been
slow to mature in SQL, is non-trivial in HTML as we see, and is hard to
generate from PHP/Ruby/whatever.
>I hate this type of documentation sites personally.
Fine, you've no need for website maintenance of data-driven trees.
That's not a rationale for excluding framesets from HTML5.
> And to me this use case looks built around the chosen implementation,
Wrong. Frameset was chosen because it provides the most efficient
available implementaiton.
> while I prefers solutions built around solving the real need.
Which this is.
>So you want HTML5 spec tailored for this particular case of yours?
>Can I have <dancinghampsters> tag, please?
May I have rational responses please? This is not a request for a new
feature. I want HTML5 to continue support for useful HTML.
>Nobody forbids you from using previous versions of HTML.
Correct, but excluding frameset from HTML5 increases the likelihood that
browsers will drop support for the feature.
PB
-----
Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
So it does not answer the question: if framesets are as you claim not needed
for the full spec, there should be lots of non-frameset sites which meet
this spec as efficiently as ours does.
Maybe there are not many sites because nobody wants this type of sites?
I hate this type of documentation sites personally.
And to me this use case looks built around the chosen implementation,
while I prefers solutions built around solving the real need.
If that blocks a use case, by all means don't use a frameset for it. For
this use, the above poses no problem at all. And if CSS were actually as
efficient for this spec as framesets, surely some developers would have
taken advantage of that by now.
Once again you assume that your spec is highly desired. Maybe it is not
the case and so nobody bothered.
<…>
No need in this case.
<…>
Not an issue for this use.
So you want HTML5 spec tailored for this particular case of yours?
Can I have <dancinghampsters> tag, please?
Here's an application for framesets which is valid on previous versions of
HTML,
Nobody forbids you from using previous versions of HTML.
meets a need, is more efficient than known implemented alternatives
for this use case,
You have framed (pardon the pun) this use case this way and reject all
other options. Once again—you can use HTML4.01 frameset document
with HTML5 documents loaded to frames. This was suggested more
than once.
and does not suffer from any of the frameset deficiencies
you have listed.
How so?
Framesets remain useful, excluding them from HTML5
undermines support for those uses, and that weakens HTML5.
I'd argue that it strengthens HTML5.
Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.421 / Virus Database: 270.14.16/2435 - Release Date: 10/14/09 06:33:00
