- From: Jerry Baker <jerrybaker@mail.attbi.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 10:03:31 -0600
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Stuart Ballard says: > Jerry Baker wrote: > >> >> 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? > > > bz already answered this I believe. > >> 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. > > > Not strictly true. It's entirely possible to surround some text with an > <a name="">foo</a> - in fact, if it wasn't, this whole discussion would > be moot because there'd be no pixel-space to hover over, and the hover > state couldn't be activated. I think you are misunderstanding me. I am well aware that named anchors can contain text. I wasn't saying that :hover for them was silly because they were empty, but because they are invisible, non-structural, and unusuable to the end user. In the end user's world, they don't exist. Much like a comment. A named anchor is a unique kind of tag in that it is nothing more than the recipient of an event in a manner of speaking. It doesn't orginate events, it doesn't have any effect on how a document is structured, and, except for this silly behavior, it doesn't have anything to do with the layout of a document.
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 12:03:33 UTC