W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > December 2010

Re: [RC4] active-selector-002

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 19:03:07 -0500
Message-ID: <4D1A7ABB.3030104@inkedblade.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On 12/28/2010 05:48 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> We may want to change the test to remove this independence.

Dependence you mean. Yes, I could remove the dependence on the outcome
of whether <span> on its own is activateable by making the <span> not
turn red.

> I think it's valuable to test that ancestors of the activated element are
> :active

This is explicitly not required by the spec, therefore a test for it
would be rejected.

# CSS 2.1 does not define if the parent of an element that is ':active'
# or ':hover' is also in that state.

 > (IE doesn't do this currently, and it's a pretty annoying
 > behavior),

If the link in the testcase became :active when it was activated,
but the :active-ness was not passed to the link's ancestors, would
that annoy you? I think IE's behavior is problematic because the
link does not respond to :active when it is activated, not because
it does not pass :active up the ancestor chain.

 > so we should maybe put a <button> inside an <a> instead, or
 > something similar.

This is not allowed in HTML.

Received on Wednesday, 29 December 2010 00:03:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:22 UTC