- From: Ian Hickson <py8ieh@bath.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 15:34:07 +0100 (BST)
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>
- cc: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, L. David Baron wrote: > I suggest, instead, that the paragraph be changed to read: ># For HTML documents, however, we recommend that authors specify the ># background for the BODY element rather than the HTML element. User ># agents should observe the following precedence rules to fill in the ># background: if the value of the 'background-color' property for the ># HTML element is 'transparent' and the 'background-image' property ># for the HTML element is 'none', then derive the actual value of ># each of the following properties on the HTML element from the ># computed value on the BODY element and derive the actual value on ># the BODY element from the computed value on the HTML element: ># 'background-color', 'background-image', 'background-repeat', ># 'background-attachment', and 'background-position' (where the ># actual values must be recomputed based on the size of the HTML ># element). If, once this is done, the actual value of ># 'background-color' on the HTML element is 'transparent', then the ># rendering is undefined. That sounds reasonable. This means that if the author wants the BODY element's background to stay within the BODY element's borders, he has to explicitly set the background color of the HTML element. And if the user wants the HTML element a special colour with a border on the BODY element, he can just set it, and it will not get overridden by an author's 'background' rule on BODY. Ok. -- Ian Hickson : Is your JavaScript ready for Nav5 and IE5? : Get the latest JavaScript client sniffer at : http://developer.netscape.com/docs/examples/javascript/browser_type.html
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 1999 10:34:12 UTC