- From: Kishore Kulkarni <kulkarni@pathcom.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 21:13:58 -0400
- To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>, "gordon" <gordon@quartz.gly.fsu.edu>
- Cc: "'www-style'" <www-style@w3.org>
Kartik is not on this email anymore. Please do not send any mail to kulkarni@pathcom.com -----Original Message----- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> To: gordon <gordon@quartz.gly.fsu.edu> Cc: 'www-style' <www-style@w3.org> Date: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 5:52 PM Subject: Re: Minor error in CSS2, section 14.2; 'background' > > >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 Wednesday, 22 September 1999 21:07:38 UTC