Yes, to the best of my knowledge that is correct: order does matter
(although only in some browsers I think) and that is the correct order. And
I think that if you don't style everything, it takes the value for the last
one in the order (e.g. if you don't style active, it will assume the
properties of hover).

And those memory thingies are called mnemonics. :)

Cheers,

Seona.

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Nick Lo
Sent: Friday, 18 June 2004 11:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WSG] Order of a state (link, visited, etc) styles in a
stylesheet


This question is not really very easily Googlable so I'm posting it 
here.

I vaguely remember reading that the order in which a state styles 
appeared in a stylesheet was important.

I made a rough memory recall thingy: LoVe HAte (not an acronym but must 
have some official name) to stand for:

a:link
a:visited
a:hover
a:active

So my questions are;
Does the order matter?
If so why and is my order above correct?
Do we need to have all states styled?

By the way if anyone's interested TRouBLe is a good memory recall 
thingy for the Top, Right, Bottom, Left, order of padding, margin, etc, 
attributes.

Thanks,

Nick

*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
***************************************************** 


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.701 / Virus Database: 458 - Release Date: 7/06/2004


__________________________________________________________________
<< ella for Spam Control >> has removed Spam messages and set aside Later
for me
You can use it too - and it's FREE!  http://www.ellaforspam.com

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.701 / Virus Database: 458 - Release Date: 7/06/2004
 

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>

Reply via email to