On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 08:51:25PM +0200, Johannes Hofmann wrote:
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 10:06:54PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 07:23:08PM +0200, Johannes Hofmann wrote:
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 02:44:20AM +0000, corvid wrote:
Johannes wrote:
Please test attached patch. It is a bit more involved than I had hoped, but it seems necessary after looking at the spec.
en.wikipedia (with remote css off) gives me "** WARNING **: No background color found!" msgs.
Yes, I think this is because I had to remove the background-color property from the user-agent style in css.cc. It's a bit weird: The spec says, that the canvas color should either be the background color assigned to the <html> tag, or if that has no background color, it should be the background color of the <body> tag. So we can't no longer set a background color in the user-agent style. If we assign it to the <html> tag, we will see a weird frame if page authors set a background-color on the <body> tag. If we assign it to the <body> tag, pages that set the background-color for the <html> tag will have a frame.
So maybe we need to reintroduce the bg_color dillorc option to set a background-color if the page has no background-color on neither the <html> nor the <body> tag. Opinions?
Can't we set both <html> and <body> ?
Unfortunately no. If we do that and the page sets background-color for body, we would have a frame with our background-color and a box (for <body>) with the background-color defined in the page. Also if the page sets a background-color for <html>, we have a frame with the pages background-color and a box with our color.
I see... IMHO, having just one place for setting the appearance is an important asset (simplicity/orthogonality). If we can keep this feature without introducing an ugly hack I'd go for it. Now, as you know much better the implementation details, I leave it for you to decide. -- Cheers Jorge.-