- From: gordon <gordon@quartz.gly.fsu.edu>
- Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 12:20:08 -0700
- To: "'www-style'" <www-style@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: Braden N. McDaniel <braden@shadow.net> To: gordon <gordon@quartz.gly.fsu.edu>; 'www-style' <www-style@w3.org> Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 5:23 PM Subject: Re: Minor error in CSS2, section 14.2; 'background' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: gordon <gordon@quartz.gly.fsu.edu> > To: 'www-style' <www-style@w3.org> > Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 9:53 AM > Subject: Re: Minor error in CSS2, section 14.2; 'background' > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> > > To: gordon <gordon@quartz.gly.fsu.edu> > > Cc: 'www-style' <www-style@w3.org> > > Sent: Thursday, September 09, 1999 4:41 AM > > Subject: Re: Minor error in CSS2, section 14.2; 'background' > > > > > > > > > > > > > gordon wrote: > > > > > > > > Easy enough. > > > > > > > > A document with style added to the html element: > > > > http://gly.fsu.edu/~gordon/html.html > > > > http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://gly.fsu.edu/~gordon/html.html > > > > > > > > The same document with the style attribute removed: > > > > http://gly.fsu.edu/~gordon/html2.html > > > > > http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://gly.fsu.edu/~gordon/html2.html > > > > > > > > [please note that these are very simple documents!] > > > > > > But this is valid: > > > > > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" > > > > > > "http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-html-in-xml-19990304/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.d > > td"> > > > <?xml-stylesheet href="style-on-html.css"?> > > > <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/Profiles/xhtml1-transitional"> > > > <head> > > > <title>html and style.</title> > > > </head> > > > > > > <body> > > > > > > <p> > > > Run this page through the W3C validator. > > > The results will show how to put style on the html element. > > > </p> > > > > > > </body> > > > </html> > > > > > > where style-on-html.css has > > > > > > html { background-color:#806040 } > > > > > > Now its valid, and we can discuss whether background should apply to > > > html or whether it only applies to its children, etc. > > > > > > -- > > > Chris > > > > > > > That will do. The way that I see the basic form of an HTML document is > that > > the root node (html) is the wrapper for the [two] allowed child nodes > which > > are head and body. The head node contains meta data that describes, among > > other things, the rendering of the body node contents (CSS) and > interactions > > with the user (scripting). The body node contains the description of the > > parts of a document, where those descriptive parts are the various HTML > > elements which contain the document [contents]. > > > > Since the object to be rendered is contained within the body node, it is > the > > node to which CSS should be applied. Were I writing a UA, the body node > and > > the canvas would be equivalent as the html node has historically not been > > rendered. > > If the HTML node had "historically not been rendered", we would not be able > to see HTML documents in browsers! The BODY and HEAD nodes are children of > the HTML node. Thus, if the HTML node is not rendered, by definition one > would not be able to see its children. This is downright silly as it asserts that one faces an all-or-nothing scenario in which case one would also render the head node as well. > > Importantly, the UA you describe would not conform to W3C Recommendations, > since that is not what they specify. "The body of a document contains the document's content. The content may be presented by a user agent in a variety of ways. For example, for visual browsers, you can think of the body as a canvas where the content appears: text, images, colors, graphics, etc. " Sound familiar? It should, since it's from 7.5.1 The BODY element, HTML 4.0 Specification W3C Recommendation 18-Dec-1997. > -- > Braden N. McDaniel > braden@endoframe.com > <URL:http://www.endoframe.com> > > >
Received on Sunday, 12 September 1999 15:20:18 UTC