Tim Rowledge writes:
 > On Tue 28 Jul, Mark Guzdial wrote:
 > > within Squeak.  (Please don't ever implement frames! :-)
 > >
 > Surely frames would be easy to provide simply by inserting a new browser
 > window? Not much ugly about that is there? :-)
 > The problem with not having frame support is that lots of useful websites just
 > don't work without them anymore. Annoying, but true.


Pragmatically, I agree, some frames support is important.  At first,
I'm just going to copy Lynx's really cheap frame support: put links to
the sub-frames.  I get a real kick out of visiting arrogant pages say
"Your browser doesn't support frames.  Use another browser", and then
clicking on in.  Eventually, frames in Scamper will probably look the
same as however tables look.  But it's not a real high priority for me
personally.

Incidentally, it's amazing what lynx can do with just an 80x25 screen
of text; I had been using it lately to avoid downloading netscape, and
actually have ended up not missing netscape at all.  What many people
consider to be the basics for a web browser, for instance the above
implication that frames must be implemented and furthermore
implemented in a certain way, really is overly specific.  There's more
to browsing the web than Netscape and Internet Explorer.

Back to the matter at hand, frames philosophically ARE ugly.  They
talk about not only page layout, but window layout, in a language that
is supposed to be about content description.  Even worse than frames
is Javascript, which talks about windowing *behavior*.  Both frames
and Javascript are encrustations which have developed and become
popular simply because "everyone" uses web browsers that are so
similar.

Maybe the Squeak community can come up with a Web browsing system
that's not so similar....



Lex