...

View Full Version : block {a} tutorial



muhaidib
05-31-2005, 04:22 PM
hey guys,,, just wanted to share this code so you can use it :)

http://www.7des.com/upload/upload/td_hover.htm

:thumbsup:

muhaidib
05-31-2005, 04:25 PM
oh and by the way if you want to set classes you just make

a.navagation { }

a:hover.navagation { }

(NOT a.navagation:hover)

Bill Posters
05-31-2005, 04:47 PM
oh and by the way if you want to set classes you just make

a.navagation { }

a:hover.navagation { }

(NOT a.navagation:hover)

That's not correct.
Can I ask you where you got that bit of info from?

a.navigation:hover certainly is the right way to combine a class with a pseudo-class (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1#anchor-pseudo-classes).

BroChris
05-31-2005, 09:14 PM
Also, repeating the padding information in the a:hover part isn't necessary. You only need to add the things that have changed.

muhaidib
05-31-2005, 11:00 PM
yeah i know that a.navagation:hover works but its more orginized if you do it this way,, because frontpage will read a.navagation:hover as a:hover.navagation so its just a way to get more orginized thats all :)


and it is correct or else how the **** did it work on the sample page ?

the ( . ) just adds CLASS to the link so not ALL links are like that!

Bill Posters
06-01-2005, 09:09 AM
[edit] double-post :confused:

Bill Posters
06-01-2005, 09:14 AM
yeah i know that a.navagation:hover works but its more orginized if you do it this way,, because frontpage will read a.navagation:hover as a:hover.navagation so its just a way to get more orginized thats all :)

I still disagree. I personally couldn't care less if it helps to keep things organised in FrontPage. Favouring FrontPage certainly isn't a good enough reason to step away from using a proper, working standards method.
a:hover.navigation may well work in popular graphical browsers (e.g. Internet Explorer, Firefox, etc…), but it is not 'correct' as it's not the recommended standards method. As such, I will not automatically trust it to work in alternative browsing software.

Imho, it would be preferable that if you are going to recommend against using a standards method (when it works), then it would also be a good idea to mention precisely why. Those who are new to web development are not always able to spot the difference between a good solution and a bad one. When you're recommending others against using the working standards pseudo-class method (without mentioning that your only reason is because FrontPage mishandles it) then, imho, you're not actually helping people as much as you think.


Fwiw, if(?) FrontPage isn't able to handle simple things such as pseudo-classes without messing them about, then I suggest you - and everybody else - stop using FrontPage (which is clearly starting to distort your appreciation of good code) and start using something a bit more capable.
It's things like this that give FrontPage - and FrontPage users - the low reputation that they have amongst professional web developers who know what they're doing.

muhaidib
06-02-2005, 04:01 PM
i use frontpage because i can open my sites with the frontpage extention thats all,, i also use dreamwever

can u acttualy list a browser that more then 5% of internet users USE AS PRIMERY BROWSER and it will mix-up a.navagation:hover and a:hover.navagation ?

Bill Posters
06-02-2005, 05:00 PM
i use frontpage because i can open my sites with the frontpage extention thats all,, i also use dreamwever
Never having used FP, I don't actually know what the FP extensions do.
What do they do?


can u acttualy list a browser that more then 5% of internet users USE AS PRIMERY BROWSER and it will mix-up a.navagation:hover and a:hover.navagation ?
The point is that the standard method will work today and, given that it's the method with the largest critical mass behind it, it's the one that's least likely to 'break' tomorrow. That aside, I couldn't tell you how well any non-standard methods are handled today on alternative and assistive browsers, some of which are developing css capabilities.
UA developers are only really urged to support the standards-compliant approach. How much they support beyond that is a matter for speculation.

If you concede that there's no effective difference (in the most popular graphical browsers, today), why not get behind the standards-compliant method?
From what I recall, Dreamweaver also has site management tools that enable you to open/etc… remote sites and, again, iirc, it doesn't mess about with the pseudo-classes (not that it had great css editing facilities to start with).
Is it not possible to set FP so that it doesn't rearrange pseudo-classes? (I've not heard it mentioned before and I feel that something like this would have come up before had it not been an unavoidable quirk of FP. I thought more recent versions had made serious advances compared to past versions.)


I simply think it's a false economy to adopt (and recommend) a non-standard method purely on the basis that it is better suited to the shortcomings, of the blight on web development quality control that is FrontPage.



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum