W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 1998

RE: OBJECT, inheritance, and rendering

From: Braden N. McDaniel <braden@shadow.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:52:41 -0700
To: "'David Perrell'" <davidp@earthlink.net>, "'HTML'" <www-html@w3.org>, "'Style'" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001201bdbf18$46d44a40$7422dbd0@bonezero>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of David Perrell
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 1998 11:33 AM
> To: 'HTML'; 'Style'
> Subject: Re: OBJECT, inheritance, and rendering

> But if the purpose of OBJECT is to nest something independent of the
> enclosing document within its own subwindow,

I have a bit of a problem with your wording here, based on conclusions drawn
earlier in this thread.

We established that an embedded *HTML* document should be independent of the
host document, in its own subwindow, and thus the "base background" of the
inclusion should be the UA-specific default backgound. I'm not convinced
it's appropriate to state things in these terms for *all* media types. If
what you say above is accurate for all media types, consider the following:

	<OBJECT DATA="myimage.png" TYPE="image/png">Look, Ma! No PNG!</OBJECT>

If myimage.png has transparent portions, they would show through the
UA-default backgound color--and this, I submit, is *not* the desired
behavior. If this were the specfied behavior, it would make transparency
virtually useless with inclusions via OBJECT, severly limiting the utility
of the element.

Braden
Received on Monday, 3 August 1998 15:45:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:37 GMT