active link question

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Kate, Feb 24, 2005.

  1. Kate

    Kate Guest

    Kate, Feb 24, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Kate

    mark | r Guest

    "Kate" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I was wondering if it is possible to get the properties that I have set

    for
    > active link in css, to remain visible whilst on that page, so you can see

    on
    > the menu which page you are viewing.
    >
    > http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wwsfamilies/index.html
    >
    > links css:
    > http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wwsfamilies/links.css


    a:visited {}

    ....will style all visted links ths helps you know where youve been tho it
    will change ALL visited links.

    mark
    (bit wierded out cuz my GF names kate)
    mark | r, Feb 24, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Kate

    Kate Guest

    "mark | r" <> wrote in message
    news:421e0e05$0$26722$...
    >
    > "Kate" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > I was wondering if it is possible to get the properties that I have set

    > for
    > > active link in css, to remain visible whilst on that page, so you can

    see
    > on
    > > the menu which page you are viewing.
    > >
    > > http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wwsfamilies/index.html
    > >
    > > links css:
    > > http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wwsfamilies/links.css

    >
    > a:visited {}
    >
    > ...will style all visted links ths helps you know where youve been tho it
    > will change ALL visited links.


    No I have the visited set to a different colour, I just wanted to set the
    active to the properties set in css:

    A.menu_link:active {
    border:1px solid black;
    background-color:#D1D0C5;
    color:black;
    }

    and for them to remain visible whilst on that page, instead of only whilst
    you are clicking on that link.

    > mark
    > (bit wierded out cuz my GF names kate)


    lol...... it's a popular name. I promise you I'm not your gf checking up
    on you ;-)

    Kate
    Kate, Feb 24, 2005
    #3
  4. Kate

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "Kate" <> wrote:

    >I was wondering if it is possible to get the properties that I have set for
    >active link in css, to remain visible whilst on that page, so you can see on
    >the menu which page you are viewing.


    No, that's not what :active is for. The active state of a link
    represents the state when the links is being activated, i.e. whilst it
    is being clicked.

    Pages should not link to themselves so the best course of action is to
    edit your menu so that it doesn't contain links to the current pages.
    Then it is simple to style the unlinked text in a distinctive fashion
    to help indicate the current page.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
    Steve Pugh, Feb 24, 2005
    #4
  5. "Kate" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I was wondering if it is possible to get the properties that I have set for
    > active link in css, to remain visible whilst on that page, so you can see
    > on
    > the menu which page you are viewing.
    >
    > http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wwsfamilies/index.html
    >
    > links css:
    > http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/wwsfamilies/links.css


    >
    > Thank you in advance,
    > Kate
    >
    >



    what you could do is give your body a class or an i.d. e.g. <body
    id="contact-us">
    and also give the link an i.d .e.g. <a href="example.com"
    id="contact-us-link">example</a>

    then refer to it in your CSS as thus:

    body#contact-us a#contact-us-link{
    font-style: italic; /*or whatever formatting you want */
    }

    I think that would work but, it may help to put in some extra rules to avoid
    conflicts, with your existing link styles, such as:

    body#contact-us a#contact-us-link:visited{
    style here
    }

    You would have to fill your CSS with lots of similar rules for different
    pages and different links.


    Phil Thompson
    http://www.doubleonegative.com/
    Phil Thompson, Feb 24, 2005
    #5
  6. Kate

    Kate Guest

    Steve Pugh wrote:
    > "Kate" <> wrote:
    >
    > >I was wondering if it is possible to get the properties that I have

    set for
    > >active link in css, to remain visible whilst on that page, so you

    can see on
    > >the menu which page you are viewing.

    >
    > No, that's not what :active is for. The active state of a link
    > represents the state when the links is being activated, i.e. whilst

    it
    > is being clicked.


    No I realise that is not what it is for, I was just wondering if there
    was a way using css to do this.

    > Pages should not link to themselves so the best course of action is

    to
    > edit your menu so that it doesn't contain links to the current pages.
    > Then it is simple to style the unlinked text in a distinctive fashion
    > to help indicate the current page.


    Yes I thought about that, but it would mean a lot of extra work. When
    I have finished getting the layout sorted, and finally move all the
    information onto the pages, there will be to many to go through by hand
    removing all the links. Use see at the moment I use an include for the
    menu. But thank you no the less for your reply, it is much
    appreciated. I think I'll just have to forget that idea.

    Have a great weekend,
    Kate
    Kate, Feb 26, 2005
    #6
  7. Kate

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "Kate" <> wrote:
    >Steve Pugh wrote:


    >> Pages should not link to themselves so the best course of action is
    >> to edit your menu so that it doesn't contain links to the current pages.
    >> Then it is simple to style the unlinked text in a distinctive fashion
    >> to help indicate the current page.

    >
    >Yes I thought about that, but it would mean a lot of extra work.


    Not if you do your navigation via a server side include rather than
    via static HTML.

    >When
    >I have finished getting the layout sorted, and finally move all the
    >information onto the pages, there will be to many to go through by hand
    >removing all the links. Use see at the moment I use an include for the
    >menu.


    Then change the coding in the include to dynamically write out the
    links depending on the page.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
    Steve Pugh, Feb 26, 2005
    #7
  8. "Steve Pugh" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:...
    > "Kate" <> wrote:
    > >Steve Pugh wrote:

    >
    > >> Pages should not link to themselves so the best course of action is
    > >> to edit your menu so that it doesn't contain links to the current

    pages.
    > >> Then it is simple to style the unlinked text in a distinctive fashion
    > >> to help indicate the current page.


    Well, they did link to the current page!
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-charmod-20050215/




    --
    Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
    https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/de/uebersetzung.php
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Feb 26, 2005
    #8
  9. Kate

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:
    >"Steve Pugh" <> skrev i meddelandet
    >news:...
    >>
    >> >> Pages should not link to themselves so the best course of action is
    >> >> to edit your menu so that it doesn't contain links to the current
    >> >> pages.

    >
    >Well, they did link to the current page!
    >http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-charmod-20050215/


    Twice.
    That's a slightly case. That document should never be edited and so
    when a new version comes out and is placed at
    http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/ then the existing page will stay exactly
    where it is at the URL you give.

    So the page at http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/ links to the permament
    home of that version at
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-charmod-20050215/ and the page at
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-charmod-20050215/ links to the latest
    version at http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/. At the moment they're both
    the same page and because we're dealing with a technical specification
    the page shouldn't really be edited so must contain both links.

    On the other hand, W3C web pages are full of all sorts of bad
    practice. XHTML 1.0 Transitional?

    Steve
    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
    Steve Pugh, Feb 26, 2005
    #9
  10. "Steve Pugh" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:...
    > "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:
    > >"Steve Pugh" <> skrev i meddelandet
    > >news:...
    > >>
    > >> >> Pages should not link to themselves so the best course of action is
    > >> >> to edit your menu so that it doesn't contain links to the current
    > >> >> pages.

    > >
    > >Well, they did link to the current page!
    > >http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-charmod-20050215/

    >
    > Twice.
    > That's a slightly case. That document should never be edited and so
    > when a new version comes out and is placed at
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/ then the existing page will stay exactly
    > where it is at the URL you give.
    >
    > So the page at http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/ links to the permament
    > home of that version at
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-charmod-20050215/ and the page at
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-charmod-20050215/ links to the latest
    > version at http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/. At the moment they're both
    > the same page and because we're dealing with a technical specification
    > the page shouldn't really be edited so must contain both links.
    >
    > On the other hand, W3C web pages are full of all sorts of bad
    > practice. XHTML 1.0 Transitional?




    Do you mean that the use of
    XHTML 1.0 Transitional is a bad practice?
    Isn´t W3C supposed to indicate what is good practice and what is not
    concerning the web?
    Yes, of course they refer to different versions of the same page.
    That´s very similiar to what I tried to do on the page
    https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/de/ferienwohnung-sizilien.php
    for example.





    --
    Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
    https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/damskor.php
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Feb 26, 2005
    #10
  11. Kate

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:
    >"Steve Pugh" <> skrev i meddelandet
    >news:...
    >> "Luigi Donatello Asero" <> wrote:
    >> >"Steve Pugh" <> skrev i meddelandet
    >> >news:...
    >> >>
    >> >> >> Pages should not link to themselves so the best course of action is
    >> >> >> to edit your menu so that it doesn't contain links to the current
    >> >> >> pages.
    >> >
    >> >Well, they did link to the current page!
    >> >http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-charmod-20050215/

    >>
    >> Twice.
    >> That's a slightly case. That document should never be edited and so
    >> when a new version comes out and is placed at
    >> http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/ then the existing page will stay exactly
    >> where it is at the URL you give.
    >>
    >> So the page at http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/ links to the permament
    >> home of that version at
    >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-charmod-20050215/ and the page at
    >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-charmod-20050215/ links to the latest
    >> version at http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/. At the moment they're both
    >> the same page and because we're dealing with a technical specification
    >> the page shouldn't really be edited so must contain both links.
    >>
    >> On the other hand, W3C web pages are full of all sorts of bad
    >> practice. XHTML 1.0 Transitional?

    >
    >Do you mean that the use of
    >XHTML 1.0 Transitional is a bad practice?


    XHTML 1.0 Transitional is just a reformulation of HTML 4.01 into XML
    syntax. HTML 4.01 was designed to ease the transition between pre-1997
    HTML markup and HTML 4.01. Why use it for a page published in 2005?
    It's not an updating of a pre-1997 page and they can't be expecting
    many pre-1997 browsers to be accessing it. So why use an inferior
    version of (X)HTML?

    >Isn´t W3C supposed to indicate what is good practice and what is not
    >concerning the web?


    It's an industry consortium. The members decide what it's supposed to
    do. Suggesting best practice may be one goal they set themselves.
    Whether they live up to that goal is another matter. They are only
    human.

    >Yes, of course they refer to different versions of the same page.


    At the moment they refer to the same page. It can just be reached via
    two different URLs. In the future one of those URLs will probably
    point to a different page.

    >That´s very similiar to what I tried to do on the page
    >https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/de/ferienwohnung-sizilien.php
    >for example.


    I presume you're talking about making the same page available via http
    and https? We've already been over this.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
    Steve Pugh, Feb 26, 2005
    #11
  12. "Steve Pugh" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:...


    [cut]





    > >Do you mean that the use of
    > >XHTML 1.0 Transitional is a bad practice?

    >
    > XHTML 1.0 Transitional is just a reformulation of HTML 4.01 into XML
    > syntax. HTML 4.01 was designed to ease the transition between pre-1997
    > HTML markup and HTML 4.01. Why use it for a page published in 2005?
    > It's not an updating of a pre-1997 page and they can't be expecting
    > many pre-1997 browsers to be accessing it. So why use an inferior
    > version of (X)HTML?
    >
    > >Isn´t W3C supposed to indicate what is good practice and what is not
    > >concerning the web?

    >
    > It's an industry consortium. The members decide what it's supposed to
    > do. Suggesting best practice may be one goal they set themselves.
    > Whether they live up to that goal is another matter. They are only
    > human.




    Yes, of course. They are human.
    But they are still so to say the reference authority concerning the web,
    aren´t they?
    Or is there any other which is more accredited than they are?

    > >Yes, of course they refer to different versions of the same page.

    >
    > At the moment they refer to the same page. It can just be reached via
    > two different URLs. In the future one of those URLs will probably
    > point to a different page.



    Yes.

    > >That´s very similiar to what I tried to do on the page
    > >https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/de/ferienwohnung-sizilien.php
    > >for example.

    >
    > I presume you're talking about making the same page available via http
    > and https? We've already been over this.


    That was only a little part of it.
    There are the html version and the php version.
    As a whole I have tried lately to link the page to the latest and to an
    older version of the same page if there is one.


    --
    Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
    https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/oversattning.php
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Feb 26, 2005
    #12
  13. Kate

    Kate Guest

    "Steve Pugh" <> wrote in message

    > >I have finished getting the layout sorted, and finally move all the
    > >information onto the pages, there will be to many to go through by hand
    > >removing all the links. Use see at the moment I use an include for the
    > >menu.

    >
    > Then change the coding in the include to dynamically write out the
    > links depending on the page.


    Steve would you happen to have a page link for the above information, to
    explain how I would go about this.

    Many thanks in advance,
    Kate
    Kate, Feb 27, 2005
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. DaveF

    check if link is active?

    DaveF, May 6, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,050
    Peter Rilling
    May 6, 2004
  2. Kevin Spencer

    Re: Link Link Link DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!

    Kevin Spencer, May 17, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    810
    Kevin Spencer
    May 17, 2005
  3. Fran Cotton

    Active link problem driving me nuts!

    Fran Cotton, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    409
    Fran Cotton
    Jul 11, 2003
  4. crispy
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    12,502
    crispy
    Dec 13, 2003
  5. carlos seramos
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    476
    carlos seramos
    Aug 1, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page