- From: David Latapie <david@empyree.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:07:01 +0200
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Le 28 sept. 06 à 14:29, fantasai a écrit : > > David Latapie wrote: >> “(: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? > > Actually, if we were changing anything, I'd suggest making :link > apply to > both visited and unvisited links; but making any changes at this > point would > break backward-compatibility in a big way. :link and :visited have > been in > CSS since level 1, and have been interoperably implemented in > browsers for > a long time. Why people keep talking about backward compatibility since XHTML 2.0 is *not* supposed to backward-compatible? -- </david_latapie> http://blog.empyree.org/ U+0F00
Received on Thursday, 28 September 2006 13:07:17 UTC