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

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

From: Jerry Baker <jerrybaker@mail.attbi.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 10:03:31 -0600
Message-ID: <3D4172D3.202@mail.attbi.com>
To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>

Stuart Ballard says:
> Jerry Baker wrote:
> 
>>
>> Although I might be ignorant of some other purpose of which I haven't 
>> thought, why can't named anchors be specifically excluded from :hover 
>> and :active?
> 
> 
> bz already answered this I believe.
> 
>> I'm probably preaching to the choir, but having a:hover and a:active 
>> match named anchors seems as silly as allowing HTML comments to have 
>> :hover and :active states. The two elements are identical in behavior 
>> from the perspective of end users.
> 
> 
> Not strictly true. It's entirely possible to surround some text with an 
> <a name="">foo</a> - in fact, if it wasn't, this whole discussion would 
> be moot because there'd be no pixel-space to hover over, and the hover 
> state couldn't be activated.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am well aware that named anchors 
can contain text. I wasn't saying that :hover for them was silly because 
they were empty, but because they are invisible, non-structural, and 
unusuable to the end user. In the end user's world, they don't exist. 
Much like a comment. A named anchor is a unique kind of tag in that it 
is nothing more than the recipient of an event in a manner of speaking. 
It doesn't orginate events, it doesn't have any effect on how a document 
is structured, and, except for this silly behavior, it doesn't have 
anything to do with the layout of a document.
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 12:03:33 GMT

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