- From: Chris Wilson (PSD) <cwilso@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 09:23:50 -0800
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Mike Wexler <mwexler@frame.com> wrote: >> Every other element selector (other than <HTML>) is on structural >>elements that _occur_in_the_text_ (that is, concrete as opposed to >>implied by OMITTAG). >That's not completely true. The current CSS won't work very well unless >you support implied END-tags. For example the following: > <P CLASS="A">Start of paragraph one. > <P CLASS="B">Start of paragraph two. >You need to handle tag omission to figure out where paragraph one ends and >paragraph two starts. True enough; but end tag implication is different than begin tag implication. Not a major difference, but still more code for me. :^) >I don't see why implemented $CANVAS as a special token is any easier than >special casing BODY. Note that you really shouldn't be special casing BODY, >but if handling OMITTAG is too difficult... Because any browser will have the concept of a "document" already - as a structure, an object, whatever. You can easily attach a default style declaration to that object. In addition, the internal document structure representation, which maintains the structure of all the <HTML>, <BODY>, <UL>, <LI>, etc. tags, can have styles attached to each structure item (obviously). It has not been significant, with current requirements on web UAs, to represent tags like <BODY> if they don't exist in the text. Now, with overriding <BODY> for CSS, it is. I didn't intend for this to turn into a major discussion. I still like the abstraction of $CANVAS. Barring that, I'd rather override <HTML>, like the fifth (?) draft, mostly because tossing an extra HTML into the structure representation wouldn't have so many side effects (like bg-color, etc.). Also, <HTML> seems to me to be the "top level" of the document - I suppose it might be an interesting exercise for other people to think about what it means to set the style of <TITLE>. Again, though, I don't want us to use too much time on this point. -Chris
Received on Tuesday, 2 January 1996 12:25:43 UTC