In reverse order... Andrew Ingram wrote:
Wouldn't just styling the "a" tag by itself achieve the same effect? In fact, I can't really see any reasons to use the :link class at all. Is there something bad about not using the :link psuedo-class?
Just using "a" also affects any anchors you may have, such as <a name="section1">Section 1</a> Using a:link just targets proper <a href="..."> ones.
As far as I know, link and visited are mutually exclusive, and I quite often see people do things like "a:link, a:visited {}", but i'm having difficulty understanding why people doing it this way.
Not necessarily mutually exclusive. In theory, you can also do a:link:visited - so not completely mutually exclusive. I can't be bothered testing, but I think that a:visited would also affect named anchors as above which have been visited.
Hope this makes some kind of sense, P -- Patrick H. Lauke __________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __________________________________________________________ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __________________________________________________________ ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
