W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2001

Re: Comments on WD-css3-background-20010924

From: Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 03:54:34 +0300 (EEST)
To: Stuart Ballard <sballard@NetReach.Net>
cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.30.0109290347380.14510-100000@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Stuart Ballard wrote:

>By the same logic, you might also want to remove the semantics of <head>
>versus <body> altogether in favor of just setting display:none on all
>the elements that traditionally live in <head>.

But the head *is* supposed to have special semantics, even if not currently
applied. I believe the original intent was to have data in the head section
served on an HTTP HEAD request. What this does *not* explain is why the same
elements aren't permitted inside HEAD and BODY.

>I don't necessarily think <body> should be deprecated, but I do think it's
>inconsistent to keep it around if it isn't going to act as the root of
>what really gets rendered. If it is, on the other hand, the recommendation
>to use it for specifying background styles should stand.

I don't really see a reason not to treat all XML/SGML elements as equal with
respect to style languages. There are a whole lot of useful things one can
do if this is the case, and the distinction between elements rendered and
not rendered is artificial at best -- there are many instances where one
might want to render information in the head only. Following this logic, it
is just a convention that only the body is shown to the user, and there is
no reason why someone couldn't need both head and body data to be shown no a
background defined for the document root, html.

Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:decoy@iki.fi, tel:+358-50-5756111
student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Received on Friday, 28 September 2001 20:54:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:59 UTC