- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 12:46:13 -0700
- To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Cc: CSS WG <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 12:31 PM, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: > Some quick comments to make about the local-link pseudo-class: > > (1) Shouldn’t we consider the <base> tag as the document root URL? If we > save a document on our hard drive, some browsers add a <BASE> tag to make > sure the relative urls keep working, so maybe :local-link should consider > that too. It matches on the absolutized urls. Host languages can do whatever they want to produce absolutized urls; HTML uses <base>. > (2) What happens if a virtual navigation occurs (via history.pushState); > according to me we should maybe consider the ‘displayed’ url and not the > real one, otherwise this could cause confusion (hitting reload would make > the applied style change). That's up to the host language; again, we just care about absolute urls. > (3) Are ‘javascript:void(0)” links considered non-local? external? > shouldn’t we make a not saying that an external link looks like > :any-link:not(:local-link(0), [href^=javascript])? When absolutized, they won't match the document url, whatever it is. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 6 May 2013 19:46:59 UTC