- From: lilley <lilley@afs.mcc.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 16:09:13 +0000 (GMT)
- To: cwilso@microsoft.com (Chris Wilson)
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Chris Wilson says > I don't like the disappearance of the $CANVAS. Saying that "In HTML, the > BODY element is given this role" (of acting as the container for all > elements) falls down when you think about the effects of the default > stylesheet on HTML 2.0 documents that do not have a <BODY> (or a <HEAD>, or > an <HTML>). All valid HTML 2.0 documents have a body element. For example: cguhpb [37]: more bodytest.html <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN"> <title>foo</title> hello. cguhpb [38]: html-check bodytest.html titletest.html ... ... valid They may not, as noted, actually contain <BODY> or <HEAD> or <HTML> *tags* but if the DTD was designed to allow them to be omitted then that is fine. So, given that all HTML documents contain a body, and given that the HTML 3 draft (which allowed multiple BODY elements) is currently expired, there is no problem with using style information on BODY in this manner. > Following this mechanism, I could for example only set the > background color for documents which had a <BODY>. Not so. > I vote to keep the $CANVAS notation from the last draft. Perhaps, but what does it do that BODY does not? What additional functionality does it provide? -- Chris Lilley, Technical Author and JISC representative to W3C +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Manchester and North Training & Education Centre ( MAN T&EC ) | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Computer Graphics Unit, Email: Chris.Lilley@mcc.ac.uk | | Manchester Computing Centre, Voice: +44 161 275 6045 | | Oxford Road, Manchester, UK. Fax: +44 161 275 6040 | | M13 9PL BioMOO: ChrisL | | Timezone: UTC URI: http://info.mcc.ac.uk/CGU/staff/lilley/ | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Received on Tuesday, 2 January 1996 11:09:48 UTC