- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:43:54 +0200
- To: gordon <gordon@quartz.gly.fsu.edu>
- CC: "'www-style'" <www-style@w3.org>
gordon wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Braden N. McDaniel <braden@shadow.net>
> > 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.
No, not silly at all. And not an all or nothing scenario either, except
that it is I suppose all or nothing on a per element basis.
It just requires looking at a tree structured view. Or to put it another
way, noting that an element includes its start tag, its end tag, and all
of its content (including its children).
So clearly, the HTML element is rendered - otherwise nothing would be
seen. And clearly, the HEAD element is not rendered. In other words
html > head {display: none }
html > body {display: block }
not
html { display: none}
which would produce completely empty result trees and thus, no content.
--
Chris
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 1999 17:44:10 UTC