At 02:08 PM 3/3/2005, RMW Web Publishing wrote:
If I did that then the border [on the 'a'] appears a few pixels below the
bottom of the image (looks wrong).
To get it directly under the image I'd have to add margin-bottom: 0; to the
'a' which defeats the purpose of removing the underline.
-
I trying do solve a selector (see
http://css.maxdesign.com.au/selectutorial/selectors_type.htm) that I'm
not sure can even be solved (without changes to my HTML)
I am using a bottom border on links for easier reading (compared with
underlines), but only want the border to appear on text links
how about
a img {
...
}
though i'd rather see
#nav a img {
...
}
See for more info ---
http://www.westciv.com/style_master/academy/css_tutorial/selectors/descendant_selectors.html
Cheers
Chris
RMW Web Publishing wrote:
I trying do solve a selector (see
Um.. Sorry I see what you are trying to do now.. I read that a bit too
fast the first time ...
Good question!
Chris Blown wrote:
how about
a img {
... }
though i'd rather see
#nav a img {
...
}
See for more info ---
At 09:34 PM 3/2/2005, RMW Web Publishing wrote:
I am using a bottom border on links for easier reading (compared with
underlines), but only want the border to appear on text links - not
images. Is there a why to set the style on a parent ('a') when you know
what the child is ('img')?
I believe
RMW Web Publishing wrote:
Is there a why to set the style on a parent ('a') when you know what
the child is ('img')?
No. And this is why CSS selectors suck and the W3C should have used
XPath (maybe with some syntactic sugar so you didn't need to type
descendant-or-self all the time to get all
