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

RE: OBJECT, inheritance, and rendering

From: Jelks Cabaniss <jelks@jelks.nu>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 21:09:02 -0400
To: "'HTML'" <www-html@w3.org>, "'Style'" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000301bdbf44$7a2a0f20$826aefce@jelks.mnsinc.com>
> >If it's text/plain, the UA shouldn't "honor" any HTML markup in it ...
>
> So, HTML markup in plain text files is dishonorable. Well, if the
> text can't be inserted inline and parsed then it's pretty useless
> as a client-side include.

*Text* shouldn't be parsed.  When we declare something as "text/plain", the
UA should take us at our word and render it as such. On the other hand, if
we declare an OBJECT of type "text/html", then it should be parsed -- we
just *said* so by specifying "text/html".

It's not that HTML markup in "text/plain" is dishonorable, it's just that it
wouldn't be parsed as "text/html" because it's *not* "text/html".  You could
put markup in a "text/plain" document, but it should show up as "text/plain"
with the markup fragments displaying as plain text renditions of said
"markup".

I don't see how it's useless as a client-side include mechanism.  The key
here is *what* you want to include: text or markup.

And we still need a way in CSS to specify the various types that can appear
in OBJECT, unless I'm missing something that's already there.  For example,
something like:

<style type="text/css"><!--
	OBJECT text { color: black; background: "bg.gif" font: 9pt courier
monospace }
	OBJECT png  { background: transparent }
	OBJECT html { color: green; background: white }
	OBJECT xml  { color: maroon; background: white }
/* These last two could, of course, be overwritten
   by the LINKed, embedded or inline styles in the
   documents themselves
*/
--></style>

/Jelks
Received on Monday, 3 August 1998 21:06:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:55 GMT