At 05:25 AM 8/5/2003, Frank de Lange wrote:
The specs say something like this:
Use the <frameset> tag in lieu of a <body> tag in the frame document. You may not include any other content except valid <head> and <frameset> content in a frame document. Combining frames with a conventional document containing <body> may result in unpredictable browser behavior.
So, again (this is to the list), should Dillo follow the specs - and thus produce unwanted results - or try to work around the cruft some sites serve?
Actually, my understanding is that, in frameset documents, it's recommended or at least allowed to put the <body> tag inside the <noframes> tag. I can name at least one well-designed HTML resource that agrees ( http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/html/tagpages/n/noframes.htm ), and I believe it's stated in the following line from the HTML spec: <!ENTITY % noframes.content "(BODY) -(NOFRAMES)"> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/frames.html#h-16.4.1 And http://validator.w3.org/ doesn't have a problem with there being a <body> tag inside (although it has a lot of other complaints about http://www.hot.ee/klubipegasus/ ) All that aside, I would argue that the <noframes><body></body></noframes> structure is a better way to produce a backwards-compatible document than simply <noframes></noframes>. After all, a strict HTML 2 browser (not that I think there are many) is going to look at the latter and see no BODY element and therefore nothing to display, but it will look at the former and just see some extra code around a valid body. Kelson Vibber www.hyperborea.org