• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 08:17:25 -0700
• In-reply-to: <m3k7mkr0qn.fsf@p...>
• References: <m3k7mkr0qn.fsf@p...> <r01050300-1015-17D22988B37F11D69F470003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]> <m3r8gu1phj.fsf@p...> <3D616D33.6090801@h...>

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

> 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.

This sounds like a compelling use case for XLink "extended" links:
you could link to a particular frame configuration by providing
one locator for the frameset plus a locator for the content
of each frame.


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
    • From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@g...>

• References:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
    • From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@g...>
  • Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
    • From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@g...>
  • Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
    • From: "Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)" <mbatsis@h...>

• Prev by Date: RE: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented nature of DOM
• Next by Date: Re: namespace reprise
• Previous by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• Next by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread