- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:05:13 -0600
- To: Paul D Stanwyck <n0kule@comcast.net>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Paul D Stanwyck wrote:
> p.navbar > a {display: inline; other stuff for all links;}
> a.hidden {display: none;}
The first selector has higher specificity. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#specificity -- the first selector has
specificity 0,0,1,2 while the second has 0,0,1,1
So you could either use "display: none !important" or use "a.hidden.hidden"
(specificity 0,0,2,1) as the selector, or what you did, or anything else that
gives you the right specificity ordering.
> It didn't work. My intiution was that the second line would NOT need
> specifics like "p.navbar >" because of the CSS Rec stating that
> selectors such as:
> a[attr] p.class
> Need only be coded as:
> [attr] .class
That part of the CSS specification has nothing to do with the case above.
> Soon enough, I learned that by coding the entire selector specifically:
> p.navbar > a.hidden {...}
Which incidentally increases its specificity to 0,0,2,2....
-Boris
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2005 23:05:29 UTC