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

Re: Properties applicable to root?

From: Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 18:04:40 -0700
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>, todd@verso.com, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <1304944304-1866337@psdbay.com>
> From: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>
>I assume this pseudo-class would be different from the current ones in
>that it can only be a selector in itself, i.e., HTML:root is invalid.
More like redundant.  Kind of like A:link.

>(Otherwise it could disagree with the document.) What about the fact
>that HTML is defined in the HTML specs as the root of the document?
That works just fine, because a conforming UA would respect whatever the DTD
says is the root element, and bind that element to the :root pseudo-class in
the style sheet.

>does this relate mainly to XML?  It seems like something other than a
>pseudo-class would be applicable here.
Feel free to suggest an alternative.

>>Why not have the width of the root element determine the width of the
>>viewport?  I think that ability would be useful to authors attempting to
>>fine tune the experience of their pages.  (Imagine enabling a 'kiosk' sort
>>of thing with width:100% and height:100% on the root element)
>>You could also use the 'overflow' property on the root element to
determine
>>whether or not scrollbars show up on the viewport.
>
>>Perhaps the border properties could apply to the border drawn on the
>>viewport itself, for UAs and platforms that would support that.  Again,
more
>>author control over the presentation.
>
>I don't think it should be part of CSS to move the user's browser
>around the screen or change the look of the browser.  A loss of
>consistency of the browser interface would make many novice users give
>up.
You mean give up using the web?  Somehow I doubt it.
In fact, it looks like the market is clamoring for more interesting,
creative ways of doing browsers, witness Opera (
http://www.operasoftware.com/ ) and NeoPlanet ( http://www.neoplanet.com/ ).

>  I get mad when web sites resize my browser or create new windows,
>and I think most other users do as well.

Too late. Already supported in JavaScript on popular browsers near you.  Not
going away anytime soon.

>  If I am working with a web
>browser on one side of my screen, and another program on the other
>side, I want to keep it that way,
A perfectly understandable preference.

> and I don't think there should be
>attributes to mess with that.
I think a better way of phrasing that is that the user should have the final
decision.  Which I agree with.

>  I think the concept of a web page should
>be as a document viewed within the browser, and what is outside the
>browser should be irrelevant.
Well, rarely is the use of technology limited to either what the designers
originally intended, or even what the audience originally intended.

If you don't author style sheets to affect what is "outside" the BODY
element, then say so in your user style sheet:

HTML { float: none; display: block; position: static; top: auto; left: auto;
bottom: auto; right: auto; width: auto; height: auto; overflow: auto }

>>I would loosen that to say it could take "none" or one of the
"block-level"
>>display types.
>
>This doesn't seem to make sense, since the other block-level display types
>involve lists and tables, and a BODY element is not valid within lists or
>tables (I don't think ... it's not really a question that has been asked
>before).
There is no reason to put such restriction in CSS though, since CSS can
apply to markup languages other than HTML (XML etc.).

>  I think we should be careful not to propose something that would
>make the page incomprehensible to a browser without CSS
Browsers without CSS simply ignore it.  No problem.

> or a browser that
>overrode the display: properties.  (This is a general problem with using
>the list and table display: properties outside of a UA style sheet.)
I'm not sure I understand since as far as I know, there are no browsers that
support the list and table display properties currently, and if you set
them, current CSS browsers pretty much ignore the rule/declaration - which
is correct.

>>You could interpret float within the context of the screen/viewing area.
>>For example:
>>HTML { float:left }
>>could float the window to the left edge of the screen, similarly with
>>float:right.  See below for why this would be useful.
>
>See above.
the float:none in your user style sheet would prevent this.

>>You could also allow positioning of the viewport within the screen:
>>HTML { position: absolute; top: 20px; left: 20px;}
>
>See above.
and the positiioning properties in your user style sheet would prevent this
too.

>>Another example: say you have two documents you want to present to the
user
>>side-by-side on their screen, each taking 50% of the width of the screen. 
>>You could use the following two stylesheets:
>>
>>// stylesheet 1
>>HTML { float: left; width: 50%; overflow:scroll }
>>
>>// stylesheet 2
>>HTML { float: right; width: 50%; overflow:scroll }
>
>This should be done with frames, not with moving browser windows around.
Perhaps.  Nothing wrong with letting the author decide that though.

>Users have different size screens and they should be able to look at the
>documents as they want.
Of course.  That is why declarations in the user style sheet take precedence
over any author style sheet declarations.

Tantek Celik
Internet Explorer for Macintosh
tantekc@microsoft.com
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 1998 20:57:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:56 GMT