- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:02:09 +0200
- To: Antony Kennedy <booshtukka@me.com>
- Cc: Dave Kok <email@davekok.nl>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Antony Kennedy <booshtukka@me.com> wrote: >>> Preferably this pseudo-class would also be triggered for named anchors, >>> <a name="foobar"></a> when the name is in the hash of the URL. >> Wrong directionality - that's what :target does. > > I understand what :target does, but what about the link that links to the current target - how do we target that? Note that <a name> is *not* a link. It's just a legacy markup pattern for defining anchors (which no one should use anymore since IDs have defined anchors for years and years). :local-link is meant to match the links that link to the current page. >>> Personally I would like a more descriptive pseudo-class name more >>> specific to this context. current and self could be used in many >>> contexts. Perhaps current-uri or something like that. >> >> "current-uri" seems pretty identical to "local-link", doesn't it? > > > I find current-uri to be clearer than local-link. Well, we don't use "uri" for web-facing names; it's always "url". But sure, opinions can differ. ^_^ > local-link sounds like it is local to the domain, current-uri sounds local to a specific URI. But if we want one pseudo-class to cover both scenarios, I’m not precious about it. Unless it's actually confusing, I would like to have all the "link to same page/folder/domain/etc" things under one name, for developer readability. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2014 14:02:57 UTC