- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 18:07:43 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Zero ambiguity, sure. The argument, tho, is that the definition is wrong/useless, and I agree. Having :link apply to `<link>` doesn't seem like a useful behavior, and the fact that it then raises these questions of what it means for a `<link>` to be visited just makes it worse. We should pursue changing the HTML definition so that :link only applies to `<a>`. (In other words, a `<link>` can reasonably be argued to be *neither* visited *nor* unvisited; it doesn't have a "visited-ness" at all. Thus neither of :link nor :visited should apply (and neither should :any-link, then).) -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3817#issuecomment-486363957 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2019 18:07:44 UTC