Re: [CSS3] What about "behavioral extensions to CSS"?

On 5/9/06, Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> wrote:
> Christoph Wieser schreef:

> Basically, what I'm saying is that in some very small cases :onclick()
> could be useful, but in the majority of cases it can either be done with
> one of the existing (or maybe new) states, or it is behaviour defined in
> CSS. And that is why it should imho not be part of CSS.

Personally, I think CSS is already full with behavioral styles.
Things like :hover (which you admitted as a behavioral thing) can
change behavior of elements, but it's because of css properties like
display or overflow that they can do that.
Setting something to display: none certainly changes the behavior of
an element (can't click it, hover over it, focus it, etc). The
behavior is already defined in the css properties.

The :hover pseudo-class only defines how an element should look like
when this state has been reached.
The same could be said for :onclick() (I would prefer :activated() ),
it only defines how an element should like when this state has been
reached.
With most browsers, you can click on elements (except when they're
display:none for example), so providing a :onclick() pseudo-class
wouldn't change anything. Elements can reach this state already, but
now there is a way in css to provide styling for it.

I don't think there is already an existing state for css that could do
what :onclick() could do.

Regards,
Martijn


> ~Grauw
>
> --
> Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!!
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
> Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
>
>
>
>