<frame> in html5

Discussion in 'HTML' started by fulio pen, Jul 21, 2011.

  1. fulio pen

    fulio pen Guest

    hello,

    There is no <frame> and <frameset> on html5. but frame is still
    useful on web sites sometimes. I wonder whether or not the same task
    can be accomplished with css or javascript? Where to get the
    information? thanks for your help.

    fulio pen
     
    fulio pen, Jul 21, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 21.07.2011 14:32, fulio pen wrote:

    > There is no <frame> and <frameset> on html5. but frame is still
    > useful on web sites sometimes.


    So what? HTML5 doesn't magically make browser ignore <frame> and
    <frameset>.

    > I wonder whether or not the same task
    > can be accomplished with css or javascript?


    It depends on what the task is. And <iframe> is in HTML5.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jul 21, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. fulio pen

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Jul 21, 6:32 am, fulio pen <> wrote:
    > hello,
    >
    > There is no <frame> and <frameset> on html5.  but frame is still
    > useful on web sites sometimes.  I wonder whether or not the same task
    > can be accomplished with css or javascript?  Where to get the
    > information? thanks for your help.


    Unless you are very young, you likely will be able to write a page
    viewable, even on very recent computers and browsers, in a Doctype
    that allows frames, for as long as you need to write web pages. Html5
    is still just experimental, is changing, and not fully supported by
    many of the most recent browsers; It is being pushed by some for
    various reasons. However, if you insist on writing a valid page in a
    Doctype that does not allow frames or iframes, that has long been
    possible by correctly embedding one page in another page using proper
    objects, not the embed psudo tag that never was offical in W3C html,
    at least. The problem with this is mainly that many versions of IE
    will not understand this using an ordinary object. But you can use an
    Active X object, which IE understands, to embed one page in another
    page and use Microsoft conditional comments to direct to the ActiveX
    path for IE and the ordinary object path for other browsers. This
    approach also will allow including other things such as Applets that
    are not included in some more recent Doctypes of html and xhtml. The
    embedded page can be in another Doctype than for the main page.
    Moreover it is possible to extend what certain Doctypes include, but
    this is a rather advanced subject that seems to be little used on
    business web pages, for example. Moreover, for html, even many of the
    most recent browsers are loose as a goose, and will view a page that
    is full of errors for that Doctype. Xhtml is considerably more strict,
    especially in respect to XML errors, but many browsers still will let
    some other errors through. Of course it is possible to write an xhtml5
    page and serve it correctly as application/xhtml+xml. I have done so
    and been able to embed other pages, even with Doctype down to html2,
    without introducing html5 or xhtml XML errors, and I have posted an
    example or two here in the past. Even I do not use this method on most
    of my pages, and by the time html5 becomes official and is used for
    writing most new pages, I suspect I no longer will be around.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Jul 22, 2011
    #3
  4. fulio pen

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <
    m>,
    cwdjrxyz <> wrote:

    > Even I do not use this method on most
    > of my pages, and by the time html5 becomes official and is used for
    > writing most new pages, I suspect I no longer will be around.


    Don't worry, we will all be there in that Big Usenet in the Sky
    and be able to carry on, the door to hell will be at hand and all
    subscribers will need to be very careful to avoid being dragged
    or pushed through it.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Jul 22, 2011
    #4
  5. fulio pen

    Gus Richter Guest

    On 7/22/2011 1:59 AM, cwdjrxyz wrote:

    > Html5
    > is still just experimental,


    It is accepted as the next; HTML5 is for today, whereas HTML4.01 was
    yesterday.

    > is changing,


    HTML4.01 also changed as it went along.

    > and not fully supported by many of the most recent browsers;


    So it was for HTML4.01 and CSS2.1 as well.

    > However, if you insist on writing a valid page in a
    > Doctype that does not allow frames or iframes,


    FRAME and FRAMESET are non-conforming and are entirely obsolete in HTML5
    and must not be used by authors.
    <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features>

    IFRAME is supported in HTML5 - as is EMBED.
    <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/content-models.html#embedded-content-0>

    > that has long been
    > possible by correctly embedding one page in another page using proper
    > objects, not the embed psudo tag that never was offical in W3C html,
    > at least.


    The EMBED element is official in HTML5 - is supported - as is IFRAME.

    --
    Gus
     
    Gus Richter, Jul 22, 2011
    #5
  6. Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Gus Richter
    <> writing in news:j0brj4$vrr$:

    > FRAME and FRAMESET are non-conforming and are entirely obsolete in
    > HTML5 and must not be used by authors.
    > <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/obsolete.h
    > tml#non-conforming-features>
    >
    >


    That's really a pity. There is one thing that is good about frames, the
    ability to move their borders. In an intranet application I use a lot, I
    have a form on the left side, and on the other, I have another frame,
    with the query on top, and the results on the bottom. Then I can copy
    and paste the results from right side to the form on the left side. If I
    can't see all the results on the right side, I can grab the left side
    scroll bar and expand or contract it to suit. I don't think that can be
    done any other way. Again, it's for an intranet, and I'm the only one
    using it.

    --
    Adrienne Boswell at Home
    Arbpen Web Site Design Services
    http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
    Please respond to the group so others can share
     
    Adrienne Boswell, Jul 22, 2011
    #6
  7. 22.07.2011 20:59, Adrienne Boswell wrote:

    >> FRAME and FRAMESET are non-conforming and are entirely obsolete in
    >> HTML5 and must not be used by authors.

    [...]
    > That's really a pity.


    Whatever HTML5 might say, we can always ask "You and which army?" That
    is, they cannot really stop you from doing what you do. Only remotely
    and indirectly might they affect in that direction, by making browsers
    not support the "obsolete" stuff, but in fact, HTML5 requires that
    browsers keep supporting it. Schizophrenic? No, schizophreny is
    something completely different from being self-contradictory, having
    split personality, or just looking foolish.

    > There is one thing that is good about frames, the
    > ability to move their borders. In an intranet application I use a lot, I
    > have a form on the left side, and on the other, I have another frame,
    > with the query on top, and the results on the bottom.


    You can most probably use <iframe> for that and be happy even if
    extraterrestrial beings conquer the Earth and force everyone to use HTML5.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jul 22, 2011
    #7
  8. fulio pen

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <Xns9F2A6FA89DF84arbpenyahoocom@88.198.244.100>,
    Adrienne Boswell <> wrote:

    > Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Gus Richter
    > <> writing in news:j0brj4$vrr$:
    >
    > > FRAME and FRAMESET are non-conforming and are entirely obsolete in
    > > HTML5 and must not be used by authors.
    > > <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/obsolete.h
    > > tml#non-conforming-features>

    >
    > That's really a pity. There is one thing that is good about frames, the
    > ability to move their borders. In an intranet application I use a lot, I
    > have a form on the left side, and on the other, I have another frame,
    > with the query on top, and the results on the bottom. Then I can copy
    > and paste the results from right side to the form on the left side. If I
    > can't see all the results on the right side, I can grab the left side
    > scroll bar and expand or contract it to suit. I don't think that can be
    > done any other way. Again, it's for an intranet, and I'm the only one
    > using it.


    Well, it can, but you have to create a grabbar, manage its onmousedown
    events, and resize the <divs> that the grabbar separates. At least,
    that's what I do. There may be better, more reliable, or simpler methods
    for all I know.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
     
    Tim Streater, Jul 22, 2011
    #8
  9. fulio pen

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Jul 22, 7:48 am, Gus Richter <> wrote:
    > On 7/22/2011 1:59 AM, cwdjrxyz wrote:
    >
    > > Html5
    > > is still just experimental,

    >
    > It is accepted as the next; HTML5 is for today, whereas HTML4.01 was
    > yesterday.
    >
    > > is changing,

    >
    > HTML4.01 also changed as it went along.
    >
    > > and not fully supported by many of the most recent browsers;

    >
    > So it was for HTML4.01 and CSS2.1 as well.
    >
    > > However, if you insist on writing a valid page in a
    > > Doctype that does not allow frames or iframes,

    >
    > FRAME and FRAMESET are non-conforming and are entirely obsolete in HTML5
    > and must not be used by authors.
    > <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/obsolete....>
    >
    > IFRAME is supported in HTML5 - as is EMBED.
    > <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/content-m...>
    >
    > > that has long been
    > > possible by correctly embedding one page in another page using proper
    > > objects, not the embed psudo tag that never was offical in W3C html,
    > > at least.

    >
    > The EMBED element is official in HTML5 - is supported - as is IFRAME.


    First, most browsers are loose as a goose, and it will not be a
    surprise if some will show a frame properly on a html5 page. Of course
    the W3c html5 checker will show an error. This is certainly the case
    for some less recent versions of html. Most recent browers seem to do
    little checking to see if all elements belong to the Doctype specified
    and seem to just add more elements as new versions of html come along.
    For me, an ideal browser would check to see if all elements belong to
    the W3C Doctype specified and present no view of the page if there are
    any errors. Detection of errors for a Doctype is easy and fast using
    the W3C validator, and the code for it can be downloaded from the W3C.
    Thus it should be easy for browsers to add this feature. Since a large
    number of web pages are full of errors, and even many huge companies
    write code that is a html soup of many versions of html, browser
    providers are unlikely to do this. However it would be possible for a
    transitional period to give a screen that reports the page has errors,
    and that the owner of the page should be informed of this. Then you
    would be asked if you would like to see if the browser can show the
    page anyway, and if you so select, the page will be presented as it
    now is by loose browsers. Perhaps there would then be enough
    complaints to web page owners to get them to put pressure on their
    code writers to clean up their code. Unfortunately, as the slow
    transition to xhtml indicates, one still finds few xhtml pages that
    validate at the W3C, and, of those that do, most are served as text/
    html rather than the required application/xhtml+xml which means the
    page is only served as html, not xhtml. Thus the transitional period
    might well extend for a long time if the history of proper xhtml usage
    for the last 10 years is any indication.

    A little more information about the embed element might be useful.
    First embed has never been a part of W3C html or xhtml from html2 up
    to html5. The W3c validator thus rightly gives error messages if you
    use it. Embed is a hangover from the browser war era, first used by
    Netscape. It is easily avoided, at least for html 4 and more recent,
    by using the proper object method for embedding. It is not necessary
    to use embed for any media I have used including flv/swf, wmv. wma,
    mov, rm, and many more. You also do not need it to embed a web page in
    another web page.

    Embedded video or audio in html5 only can use the embed element, and
    likely presents media using installed media players just as it can by
    loose browsers for previous versions of html/xhtml without throwing an
    error. However you can better use the object element to do this, just
    as you do in correct code up to html5. But html5 has both a new video
    and audio element. These allow the browser to use a "house" player,
    not a player added to the OS, to be used for video and audio. If there
    were only one official house player, this would help make it easy to
    use only one media format on all browsers without regard to what
    players might or might not be installed on the OS. Unfortunately, each
    browser maker is free to choose a "house" player. A modern mp4 video
    format is required for IE9. Some other browsers will accept this, but
    others require an ogg format. Safari will use a mp4 format, but if the
    video is long it will have to download completely and not stream(and
    that can require a long time for a long video). To overcome the Safari
    streaming problem, you can hint the mp4 video file to output it as a
    mov file that will stream. This can be done on a pay version of a QT
    player. Thus to cover most current browsers that can handle html5
    video and audio elements, I find it necessary to include the same
    video in mp4, ogg, and mov versions. To complicate matters more some
    html5 capable browsers do not yet support important video attributes
    that may be desired such as loop, autoplay, controls, and poster.

    Using html5 with video and audio elements with a "house" player likely
    is one of the main factors driving the extreme push to html5 by some.
    This gives the browser companies control of media. I need only mention
    the Apple/flash debate as the most extreme example.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Jul 23, 2011
    #9
  10. 24.07.2011 00:37, cwdjrxyz wrote:

    > First, most browsers are loose as a goose, and it will not be a
    > surprise if some will show a frame properly on a html5 page.


    What are you talking about? The HTML5 drafts _require_ continued support
    to the <frame> element; even have _additional_ requirements (not present
    in HTML 4.01):
    <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/obsolete.html>

    > Most recent browers seem to do
    > little checking to see if all elements belong to the Doctype specified


    Understatement of the year? Can you present a single browser that even
    reads the document type definition?

    It seems that the rest of your posting was equally confused (or
    trolling?), so it can be ignored.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jul 24, 2011
    #10
  11. fulio pen

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Jul 24, 12:30 am, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    > 24.07.2011 00:37, cwdjrxyz wrote:
    > > First, most browsers are loose as a goose, and it will not be a
    > > surprise if some will show a frame properly on a html5 page.

    >
    > What are you talking about? The HTML5 drafts _require_ continued support
    > to the <frame> element; even have _additional_ requirements (not present
    > in HTML 4.01):
    > <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/obsolete....>


    I am wondering what you are talking about. The link you give just
    above says:

    "14.2 Non-conforming features

    Elements in the following list are entirely obsolete, and must not be
    used by authors:

    applet Use embed or object instead.

    acronym Use abbr instead.

    bgsound Use audio instead.

    dir Use ul instead.

    frame
    frameset
    noframes
    Either use iframe and CSS instead, or use server-side includes to
    generate complete pages with the various invariant parts merged in."


    The author of a recent book also says that html5 does not include
    support for frames(although iframes are supported) but speculates that
    developers will continue to use them anyway.

    > > Most recent browers seem to do
    > > little checking to see if all elements belong to the Doctype specified

    >
    > Understatement of the year? Can you present a single browser that even
    > reads the document type definition?


    There have been a lot of browsers used, and I have not used all of
    them. Thus I wanted to stay on the safe side by not saying "most
    recent browsers" rather than "all recent browsers" or "all browsers".

    > It seems that the rest of your posting was equally confused (or
    > trolling?), so it can be ignored.


    You are quite free to ignore it. You won't hurt my feelings. Others
    can also do the same. I have no time for an extended Usenet exchange.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Jul 24, 2011
    #11
  12. 24.07.2011 10:23, cwdjrxyz wrote:

    > I am wondering what you are talking about.


    I am writing about HTML5, which I know pretty well, having read a few
    books on it and written one.

    > The link you give just above says:


    Nothing that you quote affects what I wrote. You are quoting
    requirements on authors. I wrote about requirements on browsers (user
    agents). Having these very different is one of the key design principles
    of HTML5.

    > The author of a recent book also says that html5 does not include
    > support for frames(although iframes are supported)


    That's a category error. Specifications do not "include" support. They
    may _require_ conforming implementations to support something. And
    that's what HTML5 does regarding frames.

    > but speculates that
    > developers will continue to use them anyway.


    Does one really need to _speculate_ that browsers will keep the code
    that implements frames, when it is known that frames are used (not as
    much as earlier, but still), that HTML5 requires continued support, and
    it would be more work to remove the code than to keep it?

    >>> Most recent browers seem to do
    >>> little checking to see if all elements belong to the Doctype specified

    >>
    >> Understatement of the year? Can you present a single browser that even
    >> reads the document type definition?

    >
    > There have been a lot of browsers used, and I have not used all of
    > them. Thus I wanted to stay on the safe side by not saying "most
    > recent browsers" rather than "all recent browsers" or "all browsers".


    Would you also say that most recent browsers don't do grocery shopping
    for you?

    And in fact you wrote "little checking", not "no checking", so you wrote
    as if you hade some actual observations on such behavior.

    >> It seems that the rest of your posting was equally confused (or
    >> trolling?), so it can be ignored.

    >
    > You are quite free to ignore it. You won't hurt my feelings. Others
    > can also do the same. I have no time for an extended Usenet exchange.


    Yet you had time to wrote some overlong paragraphs that started with
    nonsense.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jul 24, 2011
    #12
  13. dorayme wrote:
    > In article
    > <
    > m>,
    > cwdjrxyz<> wrote:
    >
    >> Even I do not use this method on most
    >> of my pages, and by the time html5 becomes official and is used for
    >> writing most new pages, I suspect I no longer will be around.


    .... why? you gonna dye?

    b

    >
    > Don't worry, we will all be there in that Big Usenet in the Sky
    > and be able to carry on, the door to hell will be at hand and all
    > subscribers will need to be very careful to avoid being dragged
    > or pushed through it.
    >



    --
    b

    this is a magnum. It's one of the most
    powerful guns known to man. I know what
    you're thinking, 'did he shot 5 or 6
    bullets?'. Well, in all the confusion I
    kinda lost track myself. So ya gotta ask
    yourself one question, 'do you feel lucky?
    Huh, do ya, do ya punk? Go for it MAKE MY DAY!
     
    The Reverse Psycology Major Phd, Aug 5, 2011
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Robert Jones

    html5 vs xhtml2

    Robert Jones, Dec 2, 2007, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    864
    Bergamot
    Dec 14, 2007
  2. n0ctis

    HTML5 vs. XHTML

    n0ctis, Aug 15, 2008, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,330
    SpaceGirl
    Aug 18, 2008
  3. Ganesh

    HTML5

    Ganesh, Aug 30, 2009, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    70
    Views:
    3,225
    Ganesh
    Sep 23, 2009
  4. pranay

    HTML5 and HTTP

    pranay, Oct 18, 2009, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    531
  5. fulio pen

    target and frame on html5

    fulio pen, Sep 30, 2011, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,754
    fulio pen
    Oct 1, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page