LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for HTML-WG Archives


HTML-WG Archives

HTML-WG Archives


HTML-WG@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

HTML-WG Home

HTML-WG Home

HTML-WG  November 1995

HTML-WG November 1995

Subject:

Re: A new TAG: FRAME

From:

Aditya Kaul <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Thu, 23 Nov 95 15:22:09 EST

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (65 lines)


On Thu, 23 Nov 1995 [log in to unmask] wrote:

> 
> I'm confused -- how does your <FRAME> proposal relate to the Netscape <FRAME>
> proposal?

Lee,

I knew that this would become a problem :-(

The fact of the matter is that what I propose for the FRAME construct 
differs from the Netscape proposal in the following way:

1. My frame proposal allows flow around a frame construct.

2. My frame construct is NOT stationary on the screen (The BANNER tag in 
HTML 3.0 can do that to my satisfaction)

3. Most importantly: My proposal allows for TWO _NEW_ features

	i. Free positioning of objects (and by objects I mean ALL parts 
	of the HTML 3.0 %body.content) at an offset from the top-left of 
	the frame

	ii. My proposal suggests a mechanism for OVERLAYING of images and 
	text (the most important feature in my opinion)

It is unfortunate that Netscape has implemented a feature with this name 
and the name for this one is not really the main concern. Primarily, the 
name FRAME comes to mind for this because of it allowing a frame within 
an existing window and just seemed appropriate to ME :-).

Any better name is welcome. It is not an immediate concern.

The key issue is the functionality itself. How far is it implementable? 
Is it feasible? I would have thought so because the overlaying of images
and text is ALREADY possible in Netscape misusing a bug or an oversight in
the TABLE feature of the browser (see the demonstration of that at:
http://www.studassoc.utas.edu.au/webmaster/frames/compare.html). 

Moreover, the offset for overlays was already understood to be acceptable 
for the FIG construct.

I felt the need for the exact positioning of data on a page to be an 
increasingly necessary facility but the prime motivation for the FRAME 
construct as proposed by me is the need for overlaying text and images 
seamlessly. In fact, because of the content of the FL element, the 
content of the layer can be just about anything that is acceptable in a 
normal HTML document's body.

I will be sending a suggested rendering algorithm to the group sometime 
in the next two days. 

Rgds,
Eddie
--
Democracy can learn some things from Communism: for example, when 
a Communist politician is through, he is through.





Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager