- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 19:03:07 -0500
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On 12/28/2010 05:48 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > We may want to change the test to remove this independence. Dependence you mean. Yes, I could remove the dependence on the outcome of whether <span> on its own is activateable by making the <span> not turn red. > I think it's valuable to test that ancestors of the activated element are > :active This is explicitly not required by the spec, therefore a test for it would be rejected. # CSS 2.1 does not define if the parent of an element that is ':active' # or ':hover' is also in that state. > (IE doesn't do this currently, and it's a pretty annoying > behavior), If the link in the testcase became :active when it was activated, but the :active-ness was not passed to the link's ancestors, would that annoy you? I think IE's behavior is problematic because the link does not respond to :active when it is activated, not because it does not pass :active up the ancestor chain. > so we should maybe put a <button> inside an <a> instead, or > something similar. This is not allowed in HTML. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 29 December 2010 00:03:49 UTC