Re: a:hover and a:active and named anchors

• From: Jerry Baker <jerrybaker@attbi.com>
• Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:16:19 -0600
• To: Stuart Ballard <sballard@netreach.com>
• CC: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <3D406AA3.6070003@attbi.com>

Stuart Ballard says:
> 
> I agree that having a:hover and a:active match <a name=""> is a problem 
> (and one that we wouldn't have if html had been designed sanely, with 
> different elements for different purposes). That's why I suggested new 
> pseudoclasses, so that legacy behavior could be preserved for :hover and 
> :active, but effects like the above would still be possible.
> 
> Stuart.
> 

Although I might be ignorant of some other purpose of which I haven't 
thought, why can't named anchors be specifically excluded from :hover 
and :active?

I'm probably preaching to the choir, but having a:hover and a:active 
match named anchors seems as silly as allowing HTML comments to have 
:hover and :active states. The two elements are identical in behavior 
from the perspective of end users.

Received on Thursday, 25 July 2002 17:16:26 UTC