- From: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 23:32:49 -0500
- To: Web style list <www-style@w3.org>
Bert Bos wrote about using CSS to recognize links: > In fact, I could start right here, and echo something that somebody > showed me recently and that looks quite interesting: > > Name: link1 > Values: <selector>? attr(<name>) | none > Initial: none > Applies to: all elements > Inherited: no > > Name: link2 > Values: <selector>? attr(<name>) [ , <selector>? attr(<name>) ]* | none > Initial: none > Applies to: all elements > Inherited: no > > 'Link1' is the normal kind of hyperlink, the one you activate with the > left mouse button. 'Link2' gives secondary hyperlinks, the ones for > which you have to do something special, such as shift-click or right > click. I think a better mechanism would be as follows (though I am not yet convinced that CSS should involve itself in link recognition). Name: link Values: [ none | <selector>? attr(<name>) ] [ , <selector>? attr(<name>) ]* Initial: none Applies to: all elements Inherited: no The solitary 'none' means that this style sheet does not find any link here, although link recognition by other means is still possible. In all other cases, the first item in the list determines whether and what the primary link is. Thus, there may be no primary link while one or more secondary links exist: blockquote { link: none, attr(cite) } > Styling primary links can still be done with the ':link' and > ':visited' pseudo-classes, but with the extra restriction that the > 'link1' property may not occur in a rule with such a pseudo-class. > This avoids: > > xyz:link { link1: none } /* !? */ Would it be better to allow but ignore link properties in rules whose selectors include link pseudo-classes? This would affect what is considered a valid style sheet. Does this make a difference in implementation? -- Etan Wexler
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 23:25:52 UTC