Re: CSS1, new draft specification

lilley (
Tue, 2 Jan 1996 16:09:13 +0000 (GMT)

Chris Wilson says

> I don't like the disappearance of the $CANVAS. Saying that "In HTML, the
> BODY element is given this role" (of acting as the container for all
> elements) falls down when you think about the effects of the default
> stylesheet on HTML 2.0 documents that do not have a <BODY> (or a <HEAD>, or
> an <HTML>).

All valid HTML 2.0 documents have a body element. For example:

cguhpb [37]: more bodytest.html

cguhpb [38]: html-check bodytest.html
titletest.html ...
... valid

They may not, as noted, actually contain <BODY> or <HEAD> or <HTML> *tags*
but if the DTD was designed to allow them to be omitted then that is fine.
So, given that all HTML documents contain a body, and given that
the HTML 3 draft (which allowed multiple BODY elements) is currently
expired, there is no problem with using style information on BODY in
this manner.

> Following this mechanism, I could for example only set the
> background color for documents which had a <BODY>.

Not so.

> I vote to keep the $CANVAS notation from the last draft.

Perhaps, but what does it do that BODY does not? What additional
functionality does it provide?

Chris Lilley, Technical Author and JISC representative to W3C 
|  Manchester and North Training & Education Centre   ( MAN T&EC )  |
| Computer Graphics Unit,             Email: |
| Manchester Computing Centre,        Voice: +44 161 275 6045       |
| Oxford Road, Manchester, UK.          Fax: +44 161 275 6040       |
| M13 9PL                            BioMOO: ChrisL                 |
| Timezone: UTC        URI: |