- From: Jonny Axelsson <jonny@metastasis.net>
- Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 17:36:49 +0100
- To: "www-style" <www-style@w3.org>
- Cc: "www-style" <www-style@w3.org>
At 06:43 29.01.00 -0800, gordon wrote: >Isn't the traditional 'other mechanism' the view [page] source option? It >might be convenient to have view head or view body available, however, most >users aren't too interested in the contents of the head section of a >document. That part I meant as a strictly legalistic argument, it is not forbidden in HTML or CSS, thus it is legal. Appendix A of CSS2 ("informative, not normative") implicitly support this with the property HEAD { display: none } So if we pretend Appendix A was normative, you could show HEAD elements by overriding it: HTML HEAD { display: none } The second question is it reasonable? It certainly is surprising from the vantage point of "Metadata is not data. Data is visible, metadata is not." (analogous to "The physical world is tangible, the metaphysical is not"??). In the case of the TITLE element, it can actually be useful. Either for lazy typists to avoid writing the same title twice (one for TITLE, one for H1). This should be discouraged as a non-CSS UA would lose that H1. But it would be practical in cases like these: +----------------------+ |+------+ +-----------+| ||TITLE:| | HEADLINE || || page | | The body || ||title | | element || |+------+ | goes here || | | ... || | | ... || +---------+-----------++ The consequence for the other elements are minor, BASE, META and LINK are empty, and SCRIPT and STYLE are traditionally hidden inside comments (XHTML may change that). I'm not an implementator, but my guess is that not making a special case of HEAD (HEAD is just by default display:none) is slightly simpler. Jonny
Received on Saturday, 29 January 2000 11:37:37 UTC