From: Matias Capeletto (matias.capeletto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-20 15:44:35
> >>> I have give it more than one thought to it. Iostream navigation
> >>> style use frames. Frames are not part of XHTML because they cause
> >>> lot of troubles.
> >>> We have implemented a new navigation approach based on GropedLinks
> >>> () select boxes. Look at the top-right corner of the page:
> >>> http://tinyurl.com/22sja5
> >> I didn't see anything at the top-right hand corner of the page.
> > Browser?
> sorry, all I'm seeing is a nice green rectangle above the words "Search
> and a right pointer arrow that displays the word "Next" when the pointer
> is placed over it.
Weird, it has been tested in IE7 several times in different machines.
> > IMHO working with frames is not the right direction. We can
> > investigate iframes, a module of XHTML 1.1 but for now is it out of
> > the scope of the proposal.
> Well, I certainly don't want to be guilty of promoting scope creep.
> Though I would menention that frames have been a part of standard
> html forever and documentation for many boost libraries have them
> for just this purpose.
The standard is moving towards an unframed web.
> on the particular case. In the case of J.Turkanis navigator control
> this was discussed at some length and the final consensus seemed to
> be that this was an acceptable and useful tool.
If we use only W3C allowed js, and if we make sure that it degrades
gracefully when used in an old browser IMHO we should include js in
our docs. Look at our design, the places where js has been used are
very discrete. We do not want flashy things flying around, really. We
only add dynamic support for useful and discrete tools that do not
interfere with the user.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk