- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:59:46 +0200
- To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:46:20 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Simon Pieters wrote: >> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:59:11 +0200, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> >> wrote: >> >> > I think the spec should be aligned with what IE and Opera do on >> getting, >> > i.e. return the first body or frameset element in the document. I >> think the >> > spec is fine for setting. >> >> ...except the wording needs to be changed a bit. Step 3 says: >> >> Otherwise, if the body element is not null, then replace that element >> with the new value in the DOM, as if the root element's >> replaceChild() >> method had been called with the new value and the incumbent body >> element >> as its two arguments respectively, then abort these steps. >> >> s/root element/body element's parent node/ > > How can the body element's parent node ever be anything but the root > element, given the definitions in the spec? I suggested that the definitions be changed...: >> > I think the spec should be aligned with what IE and Opera do on >> getting, >> > i.e. return the first body or frameset element in the document. But now I think it's better to have document.body be more in line with the CSS definition of the body element (so code can be reused), so the spec is fine. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Monday, 28 July 2008 08:00:30 UTC