>From: "Techwatcher" [EMAIL-REMOVED]>
>CSS2 specifies that some elements (including quite common ones) are NOT
>children of body! They ARE descendants of HTML (the <html> root
>element), however. Of course, the older browsers DO treat body as the
>root element for html pages.
Irrespective of whether root is HTML or BODY, the fact remains that any
element used on the page that is contained within BODY is, by definition, a
child or descendent of BODY. Whether CSS2 has some other issues,
structurally a P or DIV or UL within BODY is structurally a child or
descendent of that BODY.
Perhaps you can explain what the issue is that you're raising, so we can
understand it and see any implications.
>Therefore, using HTML as root element will probably leave older
>browsers with buggy display; while using BODY is not future-proof,
Specifying styles for font, etc. on BODY does not require that BODY is
considered as root. It simply means that any elements within BODY should
inherit those styles. Whether BODY or HTML is the true root is a separate
issue, as far as I can see.
>I like the mastergrid.html that is supposed to be the repository of all
>browser oddities. I'd be *really* very fond of it if it were an updated
>(perhaps with examples of problem URL's and CSS), and somewhat more
Yes, there are too many oddities that simply aren't covered by mastergrid.
Although, given the variety and number of oddities, it would be a mammoth
job for any particular reference to cover them all.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.