- From: Eli Friedman <sharparrow1@yahoo.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 16:04:14 -0800 (PST)
- To: ian@hixie.ch
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Hmm, should anything be done about ltr/rtl handling on the body? See http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsblame.cgi?file=mozilla/layout/generic/nsGfxScrollFrame.cpp&rev=3.298&mark=2079-2087#2079 I'm not sure if there's anything about it in the spec. -Eli Friedman --- Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Steven Pemberton wrote: > > On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:10:18 +0100, Ian Hickson > <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't disagree. But why should <body> be > non-magic in XHTML when > > > > it is magic in HTML? > > > > > > The XHTML2 WG asked for it to be. It really is > that simple. > > > > Actually, it was exactly the other way round. The > CSS WG asked the HTML > > WG for it to be non-magic, and even wrote the text > for the spec. See > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/1999JulSep/0011.html > > > (member-only link). > > Ah. That'll teach me to believe what I'm told. :-) > (My statement above was > based on what I was told after joining the CSSWG in > 2000.) > > I guess this means that there is no longer anyone > who actually wants to > keep these differences, and we can indeed go ahead > with the change. > > The wording difference to CSS2.1 would be: > > 6.4.4 paragraph 2: change "For HTML" to "For HTML > and XHTML". > > 11.1.1: Change the sentence "HTML UAs must > instead apply the 'overflow' > property from the BODY element to the viewport, > if the value on the > HTML element is 'visible'." to: > > When the root element is an HTML "HTML" > element or an XHTML "html" > element, and that element has an HTML "BODY" > element or an XHTML > "body" element as a child, user agents must > instead apply the > 'overflow' property from the first such child > element to the > viewport, if the value on the root element is > 'visible'. > > 14.2 paragraph 4: change to: > > For HTML documents, however, we recommend that > authors specify the > background for the BODY element rather than > the HTML element. For > documents whose root element is an HTML "HTML" > element or an XHTML > "html" element that has computed values of > 'transparent' > for 'background-color' and 'none' for > 'background-image', user > agents must instead use the computed value of > those properties from > that element's first HTML "BODY" element or > XHTML "body" element > child when painting backgrounds for the > canvas, and must not paint a > background for that child element. Such > backgrounds must also be > anchored at the same point as they would be if > they were painted > only for the root element. > > 17.5 paragraph 2: change the last sentence to: > "These rules do not > apply to HTML or XHTML; HTML imposes its own > limitations on row and > column spans." > > 17.5 final example: This would need various > editorial changes to > indicate that the second example is not XHTML but > some non-HTML XML > vocabulary. > > HTH, > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E > )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, > _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. > `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
Received on Saturday, 10 March 2007 00:04:20 UTC