Ingo Chao wrote: > http://www.satzansatz.de/cssd/tmp/ophoverlinebox.html
Rahul Gonsalves wrote: > I tried to wrap my head around your test-case, but could not, for the > life of me understand why the second set of links light up, while the > first requires hovering only on the inline/line-box area. Both sections are indeed identical except the '###' characters in the last anchor. To me, it looks like as if the area that reacts on mouse events is constrained to the height of a hypothetical line-box. This line-box is build by the inline-boxes of those elements who actually contain the characters. 1st example: the hypothetial line-box is constrained in height by the three green spans. (This line-box matches the blue box of the ul.) 2nd example: the hypothetial line-box is constrained in height by the last maroon anchor in addition to the spans. This results in the interesting effect that a character in one of the anchors induces a change for all affected links in that line. To prove this interpretation a bit: resize the window. These are inline elements, they wrap like characters into the next line when the window gets too small. But even in the second example, the link's hoverable area gets wrong again when the last anchor with the '###' wraps into the next line. The two links that remain un-wrapped on the initial line are not completely hoverable again. Their hypothetical line-box is build by the first two spans solely. A nice effect results by resizing the window to that position where only the '###' wraps into the next line, but all the three green spans remain unwrapped. Bugs are completely absurd, so is the interpretation of them. Sometimes its fun, though. Ingo -- http://www.satzansatz.de/css.html ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
