- From: David Latapie <david@empyree.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:38:50 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
- Cc: Eric Meyer <eric@meyerweb.com>
Good day, Regarding link pseudo-classes (<http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-css3- selectors-20051215/#link>) +-=-=-= | <http://meyerweb.com/eric/css/link-specificity.html> | This is why the recommended order in CSS1 goes like this: | a:link | a:visited | a:hover | a:active | |The first two can be in either order, actually, because a link can't be both visited and unvisited at the same time. |(:link means "unvisited"; and no, I don't know why they didn't call it that.) +-=-=-= (:link means "unvisited"; and no, I don't know why they didn't call it that.) I think Eric Meyer has a point here. Changing it would make it easier to understand. What do you think of it? -- </david_latapie> http://blog.empyree.org/ U+0F00
Received on Thursday, 28 September 2006 10:39:08 UTC