- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:28:17 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, public-html@w3.org
On 17.06.2010 12:15, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> ...
>> In practice, however, we find that most authors simply avoid this hassle of
>> styling buttons to look like links in favour of simply using a link with
>> script to satisfy the behavioural implementation requirements. Even though
>> from theoretical point of view, doing so may be less than ideal, web
>> developers have to make a trade off between semantic purity and matching the
>> client's requirements in a cost effective and timely manner. Spending time
>> replicating the look and feel of a link by styling a button often loses out
>> to simply using a link and getting the job done faster.
>
> Out of curiosity, how much CSS was required to do this? If an
> implementation follows the recommendations of the HTML5 rendering
> section, then I think the following CSS should be enough:
>
> .buttonAsLink {
> binding: none;
> color: blue;
> text-decoration: underline;
> }
>
> However I don't think that is the case in any implementations *yet*.
> ...
I think it would be good if the spec explained why styling a button as a
link is a Bad thing. (Equally, binding a non-GET operation to something
that *is* a link).
Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2010 11:29:01 UTC