Re: [selectors4] Do we really need `:any-link`?

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Joshua Baker <jtbaker@jtbaker.name> wrote:
> I think "targeting anything that is a link, despite its history" is niche
> enough to deserve some verbosity. The same way the spec doesn't provide a
> `:remote-link` pseudo-class for external links, but instead tells you to use
> `:not(:local-link)` instead.

Yeah, eh, :any-link exists because we consider :link's semantics to be
a legacy mistake.  In an ideal world, :link would apply to all links,
:visited would *also* apply to visited links (like :local-link *also*
applies to local links).  Then we could recommend doing
:link:not(:visited), same as :link:not(:local-link).

In this, definitely not the best of all possible worlds, we're stuck
with :link being dumb.

~TJ

Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2016 23:25:04 UTC