W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2002

Re: a:hover and a:active and named anchors

From: Lachlan Cannon <luminosity@members.evolt.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 18:14:37 +1000
Message-ID: <3D4104ED.1030904@members.evolt.org>
To: Jerry Baker <jerrybaker@attbi.com>
CC: www-style <www-style@w3.org>



Jerry Baker wrote:
> 
> So instead of saying something like named anchors can't have :hover and 
> :active states, why not something like invisible and non-structural 
> elements cannot have :hover and :active states?
> 
> 

What's wrong with using the link pseudo-class when you have to use a's 
as names as well? a:link a:link:hover ... I also don't see the point of 
changing this for css3 when css2 hasn't properly been implemented yet 
and yet the vast majority of people have already moved to html 4 / xhtml 
1. By the time this was implemented there'd likely be even less reason 
for it.

Besides, invisibles couldn't have these states (how can something be 
hovered when it's not even displayed?) and how is the browser meant to 
know whether an arbitrary xml tag is structural or non-structural?

-- 
Lach
__________________________________________
http://members.evolt.org/luminosity/
MSN: luminosity @ members.evolt.org
__________________________________________
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 04:23:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:15 GMT