- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:58:41 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:11:31 +0200 (MET DST), Nicolas Lesbats
(nlesbats@etu.utc.fr) wrote:
> Isn't it better to use a:link:hover and a:visited:hover ? (I believe it's
> valid)
It's probably best to use ":link:hover" and ":visited:hover", because:
* using the a element in the selector excludes XML links (if anything
ever comes of XLink...)
* not using :link and :visited in the selector allows the selector to
match named anchors (or everything if the a element isn't used),
which could cause problems in browsers that support :hover on
elements other than links
* using the order ":link:hover" rather than ":hover:link" avoids
problems with browsers that incorrectly use only the last
pseudo-class and discard the rest
I haven't thought the ":active" issues out as carefully, and they are
in fact more complicated because ":active" is part of CSS1. Probably
the best solution is to have two separate rules (probably after any
rules for :hover):
a:active { declarations... } /* might match named anchors */
:link:active, :visited:active { same declarations... }
but I haven't tested this at all.
David
Received on Monday, 19 July 1999 10:58:47 UTC