- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:29:31 -0700
- To: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote: > The Selectors spec talks about the "document tree", e.g. "The elements of a > document tree that are represented by a selector are the subjects of the > selector." [1] > > The definition of this term in CSS 2.1 [2] states that it is a "tree of > elements" and that "[e]ach element in this tree has exactly one parent, with > the exception of the root element, which has none." > > But for the root pseudo-class [3] it is said "The :root pseudo-class > represents an element that is the root of the document. In HTML 4, this is > always the HTML element." > > There seems to be an inconsistency here if one considers HTML document > fragments and HTML elements that are not in a document. I'm assuming that > such trees are still "document trees" in the CSS sense even though they > aren't rooted at a Document node in the DOM, since there is still a "tree of > elements". > > In such cases, it seems CSS2 implies that the top-most element (DOM-wise, > having a DocumentFragment parentNode or a null parentNode) is the "root > element" in CSS terms, yet it isn't necessarily "the HTML element", which > css3-selectors claims to be the case. > > (See also [4] and thread starting at [5]) > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/#selector-syntax > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/conform.html#doctree > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/#root-pseudo > [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Jun/0116.html > [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Mar/0290.html I can't completely tell what you're asking for. Do you want the definition of :root revised to avoid implying that the root is *always* <html> in HTML, or something else? ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 14:30:18 UTC