- From: Jesper Tverskov <jesper.tverskov@mail.tele.dk>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:47:41 +0100
- To: <www-style@w3.org>
I am talking about XHTML 1.1 served as xml. If you validate such a page, the id attribute in the html element is ok but not the class attribute. Since I would like to be able to validate my pages, I can't use the class attribute in the html element but it is true that the browsers don't care. They only test for well-formedness. Nice to know that Opera considers it a bug, what about Amaya? It is much more important to convince the web community why such a radical new approach to the body and the html elements is necessary when XHTML is served as xml. Web developers are going to hate W3C for this, and it's going to make the transition to an xml based internet more difficult. The arguments for such a radical new approach better be good or the new approach will help undermine the authority of the W3C. Let us hear the arguments. Best regards, Jesper Tverskov -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] Sendt: 10. februar 2005 09:35 Til: Jesper Tverskov Cc: www-style@w3.org Emne: Re: XHTML as XML On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Jesper Tverskov wrote: > > Only Mozilla/Firefox wants us to both style the html element and the > body element for the same thing. This is redundant and no fun since the > DTD doesn't allow the use of the class attribute in the html element. You can just replace "body" with "html" in your stylesheet and it will work everywhere. (The fact that "class" and "id" don't apply to <html> elements in HTML4 is IMHO an error with HTML4, and it will be corrected in the Web Apps 1.0 proposal [1]. Browsers support this anyway so if you want to use class and id attributes on <html> it will work.) FWIW, Opera do consider the fact that styling <body> affects the whole canvas in XHTML in Opera to be a bug (I work for Opera). [1] http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/ -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2005 09:47:43 UTC