W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2001

Re: activel inks?

From: AMollah <am@freephone.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:38:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <000c01c1031e$912444e0$0401a8c0@localnet>
To: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Thanks for offering the behaviour but I don't even use css much yet becasue
of Netscape 4x problems. I love the way it can halve html file sizes though
and I'm trying to get to grips with it for the future. As I gave up on
Netscape 4x, I don't think I would be your man for N6 behaviours either!

I think the reasons that you gave would apply to the other properties as
well as a "current" property, so they don't really answer my question. I
mean, Netscape 4x (and even 6 I think) is a browser that hasn't adjusted to
"hover". That doesn't mean that "hover" isn't a useful basic navigation aid
that should not be included in style rules. Similarly, a "current" property
would be a really useful and basic navigation aid (not bloatware at all),
the only reason  I can see for omitting it from css would be if it is a
particularly difficult thing to code into a browser. As I said in my
original mail, it would have been better to include "current" intead of the
"active" property. If this had been done it would have made css lighter not
more heavy, because one more useful property would have replaced another
less useful one. Using BeCss  (I didn't know what it was - but I think it is
just a way to call external scripts if I understand it) for a basic property
like this seems to be bloat in itself. Isn't the whole point about the power
of css is that it reduces the need for scripts to do basic navigation
actions like rollover links etc.. ?

Another thing useful to include would be "external link" property. Maybe
this should be included in html spec itself (i.e. "href ext" - might be a
bit against the universal spirit of the web though), but something to deal
with it would be good. This is a case where as it stands the css specs,
although not bloated in themselves, will definitely be used to create bloat
in html. I say this because it is very useful (again a basic navigation aid)
to have different colours for external and internal links. The way people
(or wyswig editors - which in my view will be the main way in future html
and css will be generated) can do this at the moment using css is to define
a different class for external or internal and then every time they use
external or internal links they have to declare that it is of the
appropriate class. You should not have to define your own classes for
something that is of such widespread application. OK, it is better than
putting in the colours before each link, but there should be an even simpler
way.

What is this list? I thought I was just sending to www-style@w3.org , I just
clicked on the link on the website. I'm sorry I know I really should have
looked at newsgroups first, but I didn't know which they were, and I tried
one and it didn't work - could not connect to server (can you tell me the
name of the correct group please?). When I was looking for info about BeCss
I saw some mails or posts on w3.org that seemed to indicate that there is
some general confusion about the "active" property anyway, this could well
be relevant to my question.

Best Wishes,

Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
To: "AMollah" <am@freephone.fsnet.co.uk>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 2:54 PM
Subject: RE: activel inks?



Oh Dave how can I answer that without pretending I know everything.
Great question. I wish I could express myself as simply as you did when
trying to convince people about my views.

One thing is the 'bloat ware' characterisation many people use for CSS.
It is something most people in this list have in mind. The more heavy
CSS becomes, the more it loses one of it's greatest value: power in a
lightweight package.

The other is that browsers take their time to adjust to specs, making a
developers life difficult in the meantime.

Of course, all the above is nonsense in many cases, but very solid in
others. Specifically about your problem though, you can already achieve
what you want with BeCSS.

If you want to, I can make an IE behavior for you, although I will
possibly ask for the equivalent N6 one in return ;-)

Kindest regards,

Manos



> -----Original Message-----
> From: AMollah [mailto:am@freephone.fsnet.co.uk]
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 4:42 PM
> To: Manos Batsis
> Subject: Re: activel inks?
>
>
> Hi Manos,
>
> Thanks for replying.
>
> I'm sorry I'm quite new to this standards thing, but why
> exactly shouldn't
> css cover a "current" link if it covers "visited", "active" etc. ??
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> Dave
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
> To: "AMollah" <am@freephone.fsnet.co.uk>
> Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 10:53 AM
> Subject: RE: activel inks?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AMollah [mailto:am@freephone.fsnet.co.uk]
>
> > You just need to look how many sites use javascript
> > or other methods to indcate that a
> > link is to the current page.
>
> Yeah I do that too but I do think that this is not an area css should
> cover, although I wouldn't mind if you know what I mean...
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Manos
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2001 10:59:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:10 GMT