W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2007

Re: [CSS21] Make XHTML <body> magic just like HTML <body>

From: Eli Friedman <sharparrow1@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 16:04:14 -0800 (PST)
To: ian@hixie.ch
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <409462.89781.qm@web52112.mail.yahoo.com>

Hmm, should anything be done about ltr/rtl handling on
the body?
See 
http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsblame.cgi?file=mozilla/layout/generic/nsGfxScrollFrame.cpp&rev=3.298&mark=2079-2087#2079

I'm not sure if there's anything about it in the spec.

-Eli Friedman

--- Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Steven Pemberton wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:10:18 +0100, Ian Hickson
> <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I don't disagree. But why should <body> be
> non-magic in XHTML when 
> > > > it is magic in HTML?
> > > 
> > > The XHTML2 WG asked for it to be. It really is
> that simple.
> > 
> > Actually, it was exactly the other way round. The
> CSS WG asked the HTML 
> > WG for it to be non-magic, and even wrote the text
> for the spec. See 
> >
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/1999JulSep/0011.html
> 
> > (member-only link).
> 
> Ah. That'll teach me to believe what I'm told. :-)
> (My statement above was 
> based on what I was told after joining the CSSWG in
> 2000.)
> 
> I guess this means that there is no longer anyone
> who actually wants to 
> keep these differences, and we can indeed go ahead
> with the change.
> 
> The wording difference to CSS2.1 would be:
> 
>    6.4.4 paragraph 2: change "For HTML" to "For HTML
> and XHTML".
> 
>    11.1.1: Change the sentence "HTML UAs must
> instead apply the 'overflow' 
>    property from the BODY element to the viewport,
> if the value on the 
>    HTML element is 'visible'." to:
> 
>       When the root element is an HTML "HTML"
> element or an XHTML "html" 
>       element, and that element has an HTML "BODY"
> element or an XHTML 
>       "body" element as a child, user agents must
> instead apply the 
>       'overflow' property from the first such child
> element to the 
>       viewport, if the value on the root element is
> 'visible'.
> 
>    14.2 paragraph 4: change to:
> 
>       For HTML documents, however, we recommend that
> authors specify the
>       background for the BODY element rather than
> the HTML element. For 
>       documents whose root element is an HTML "HTML"
> element or an XHTML 
>       "html" element that has computed values of
> 'transparent'
>       for 'background-color' and 'none' for
> 'background-image', user 
>       agents must instead use the computed value of
> those properties from 
>       that element's first HTML "BODY" element or
> XHTML "body" element 
>       child when painting backgrounds for the
> canvas, and must not paint a 
>       background for that child element. Such
> backgrounds must also be 
>       anchored at the same point as they would be if
> they were painted 
>       only for the root element.
> 
>    17.5 paragraph 2: change the last sentence to:
> "These rules do not 
>    apply to HTML or XHTML; HTML imposes its own
> limitations on row and 
>    column spans."
> 
>    17.5 final example: This would need various
> editorial changes to 
>    indicate that the second example is not XHTML but
> some non-HTML XML 
>    vocabulary.
> 
> HTH,
> -- 
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E               
> )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,  
> _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.  
> `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
> 
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling? 
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
Received on Saturday, 10 March 2007 00:04:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:50 GMT