- From: Lachlan Cannon <luminosity@members.evolt.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 18:14:37 +1000
- To: Jerry Baker <jerrybaker@attbi.com>
- CC: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Jerry Baker wrote: > > So instead of saying something like named anchors can't have :hover and > :active states, why not something like invisible and non-structural > elements cannot have :hover and :active states? > > What's wrong with using the link pseudo-class when you have to use a's as names as well? a:link a:link:hover ... I also don't see the point of changing this for css3 when css2 hasn't properly been implemented yet and yet the vast majority of people have already moved to html 4 / xhtml 1. By the time this was implemented there'd likely be even less reason for it. Besides, invisibles couldn't have these states (how can something be hovered when it's not even displayed?) and how is the browser meant to know whether an arbitrary xml tag is structural or non-structural? -- Lach __________________________________________ http://members.evolt.org/luminosity/ MSN: luminosity @ members.evolt.org __________________________________________
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 04:23:40 UTC