W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 1999

Re: Minor error in CSS2, section 14.2; 'background'

From: Braden N. McDaniel <braden@shadow.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:31:02 -0400
Message-ID: <034501befa6b$8abf9a90$443a11cf@bonezero>
To: "Chris Wilson" <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>, "'www-style'" <www-style@w3.org>
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>
To: 'www-style' <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 9:37 PM
Subject: RE: Minor error in CSS2, section 14.2; 'background'

> I see.  Changes introduced in CSS2 win again.

No, this is consistent with CSS1; CSS2 just spells it out a little more
clearly. 4.5 of CSS1 includes the rule

"If the 'background' value of the 'HTML' element is different from
'transparent' then use it, else use the 'background' value of the 'BODY'
element. If the resulting value is 'transparent', the rendering is

The intent of this is clarified in the example that follows:

"This rule allows:

  <HTML STYLE="background: url(http://style.com/marble.png)">
  <BODY STYLE="background: red">

In the example above, the canvas will be covered with "marble". The
background of the 'BODY' element (which may or may not fully cover the
canvas) will be red."

> I'd like to see this reconciled with the background attributes on body -
> HTML is the root display node, then according to CSS the BODY must only be
> as large as its content (unless width/height are explicitly given), and
> BACKGROUND/BGCOLOR would only be shown under the actual content.

Right. In what way do the rules in 4.5 of CSS1 and 14.2 of CSS2 not achieve
the reconciliation you're looking for?

> Not to mention, of course, the other proprietary mechanisms introduced on
> BODY long before CSS2.

It seems to me these rules could be extended to cover those extensions, too;
though perhaps I'm overlooking something.

Braden N. McDaniel
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 1999 22:36:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:51 UTC