- From: Staffan Måhlén <staffan.mahlen@comhem.se>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:59:38 +0200
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
On 20 Apr 2005 at 14:50, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > a {color: black; background-color: white} > > it would still override the :focus colors > > Right. But then the page clearly wants the <a> to be colored that way. > How do you know that coloring it with the UA focus colors won't cause > issues with the page look? Well you cannot really, but at least the author could then choose to override using a dynamic pseudo. And UAs just might choose not to use un-overridable features to avoid conflict. Can you today ensure that the different UA ways of showing :focus does not cause issues with page look? > > Possibly something like adding a dimension where any property that > > had dynamic pseudo-classes in its selector would be sorted to the end > > of: > > 5. user important style sheets " > > 6. Dynamic user agent > > 7. Dynamic user normal > > 8. Dynamic author normal > > This has several issues; off the top of my head: > > 1) User !important sheets that want to override author sheets have to > manually style all sorts of dynamic stuff. > 2) Where do things like: > > body:hover a > > get sorted? How does that compare to: > > body a > body a:hover > body:hover a:hover Well yeah, that's why i'm not quite sure that i am really proposing this :). But i think that perhaps that situation would actually be better than the current? > > 3) With this setup a :hover rule by the author will still override a > :hover:active rule in the UA sheet, so you're back at square 1. But in case of that conflict i think it is more up to the author to solve it. And an author using :hover is more likely to realise he should than an author writing say <body link>. /Staffan
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2005 20:59:37 UTC