- From: Anne van Kesteren (fora) <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:02:24 +0100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, www-style@w3.org
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>Style:
>
>description { color: red }
>:link { color: green !important }
>
>:not(:link) { link: url(ref); }
>
>Markup:
>
><description ref="http://somewhere">Text</description>
>
>What color is the text? Why? Does it make sense to have links that :link does
>not match?
>
I would say green, but as you point out, that would "violate a
fundamental design constraint of CSS -- property values cannot affect
what rules apply to an element."
There are probably good reasons for that, I suppose. But when we
something like the 'link' property would exist, all elements that are
links would be expressed, in a UA that supports CSS, with that
particular property. For example:
a[href]{
link:url(href); /* not sure, but I think that
'link:attr(href,url);' makes
more sense */
}
area[href]{
link:url(href);
}
/* etc. */
That would be a UA style sheet (minimized of course, leaving out
@namespace etc.). A document author style sheet could then match all
unvisited links using ':link'. I'm not saying that only a UA style sheet
can contain that property, that would be nonsense. It was just to point
out that "Does it make sense to have links that :link does not match"
doesn't make sense.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 12:48:48 UTC