On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:11:31 +0200 (MET DST), Nicolas Lesbats (nlesbats@etu.utc.fr) wrote: > Isn't it better to use a:link:hover and a:visited:hover ? (I believe it's > valid) It's probably best to use ":link:hover" and ":visited:hover", because: * using the a element in the selector excludes XML links (if anything ever comes of XLink...) * not using :link and :visited in the selector allows the selector to match named anchors (or everything if the a element isn't used), which could cause problems in browsers that support :hover on elements other than links * using the order ":link:hover" rather than ":hover:link" avoids problems with browsers that incorrectly use only the last pseudo-class and discard the rest I haven't thought the ":active" issues out as carefully, and they are in fact more complicated because ":active" is part of CSS1. Probably the best solution is to have two separate rules (probably after any rules for :hover): a:active { declarations... } /* might match named anchors */ :link:active, :visited:active { same declarations... } but I haven't tested this at all. DavidReceived on Monday, 19 July 1999 10:58:47 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:59 GMT