- From: Tim Bagot <tsb-w3-style-0002@earth.li>
- Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 00:11:01 +0000 (UTC)
- To: <www-style@w3.org>
At 2001-03-01T18:04-0500, Eric A. Meyer wrote:- > a.easter-egg {visibility: hidden;} > > However, upon trying this I discovered that browsers which make the > element invisible also prevent me from selecting the link. In other > words, the element ceased to be available for interaction, at least > with my mouse. > Should this be the case? I think not, but I've certainly been > wrong about CSS before. If it should, then if we adopt Mozilla's > 'opacity' into CSS3, will an element be available for interaction > only so long as its opacity is a nonzero value? I think the behaviour you report is correct. <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visufx.html#visibility> says: "The 'visibility' property specifies whether the boxes generated by an element are rendered." In particular, not "the content of the boxes...". This suggests to me that hidden elements affect layout only; for all other purposes the boxes do not exist, and so there cannot be any link to be selected. Furthermore, this behaviour is absolutely necessary if links on revealed boxes with lower z-index(es) are to behave correctly. What you /could/ do is make a link with no content, and suggest suitable padding, a transparent background, and no borders, text decoration, generated content, etc. I think this ought to work. Opacity is interesting in this context. Making 0 a special case seems wrong, as you could make the opacity arbitrarily small and achieve essentially the same effect. This will cause problems when transparent elements are stacked, but there are already plenty of ways in which style sheets can have confusing and unhelpful effects. I feel that the topmost and only the topmost box should be available for interaction (where "box" should include padding and possibly borders, but not margins), just as if it were possible to set 'color: transparent'. Tim Bagot
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2001 19:11:06 UTC