On 8/15/05, BJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "I've read there is a specific order which the anchors should be declared" > <snippety> > > Correct order: > a > a:link > a:visited > a:hover > a:active
This isn't explicitly defined by the specifications, but comes from thinking like a browser. :) When an a tag is a link or it is visited, then a:link or a:visited apply. When you hover over the link, it is still a link (visited or otherwise) but now it's hovered as well. This means that both the original a:link/a:visited _and_ a:hover are used to display the link. When you click the link, then not only are you hovering over the link, you are also making it active. And it's still a link. According to the specs, if two rules have the same specificity and define the same properties, the property value defined last wins.[1] In this case, a:link, a:visited, a:hover and a:active all have the same specificity. So if you're changing colors between states, then the color defined by a:link or a:visited is defined first. If you hover over the link, then as long as a:hover is defined after a:link or a:visited, its color definition will override the link/visited definition. If, however, you define the a:link/a:visited rules _after_ a:hover, then the color defined by a:hover will be overridden by the color in a:link/a:visited. The same reasoning explains why a:active is last. HTH, Michael [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#cascading-order (and follow the "specificity" link for more about it) ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
