active link question

M

mark | r

K

Kate

mark | r said:
see

a:visited {}

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

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)
Click to expand...

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

Kate
 
S

Steve Pugh

Kate said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
P

Phil Thompson

Kate said:
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
Click to expand...
Thank you in advance,
Kate
Click to expand...


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/
 
K

Kate

Steve said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
S

Steve Pugh

Kate said:
Steve Pugh wrote:

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

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.
Click to expand...

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

Steve
 
S

Steve Pugh

Luigi Donatello Asero said:
Well, they did link to the current page!
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-charmod-20050215/
Click to expand...

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
 
L

Luigi Donatello Asero

Steve Pugh said:
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?
Click to expand...



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.
 
S

Steve Pugh

Luigi Donatello Asero said:
Do you mean that the use of
XHTML 1.0 Transitional is a bad practice?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

Steve
 
L

Luigi Donatello Asero

"Steve Pugh" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet


[cut]




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?


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.
Click to expand...



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?
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.


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

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.
 
K

Kate

Steve Pugh said:
Then change the coding in the include to dynamically write out the
links depending on the page.
Click to expand...

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
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Iframe link overlapping text 4
Another question if someone doesn't mind answering this for me 17
Why <link/> is not working? 4
foucus, outline around an image 5
A: active link 16
CSS File does not really work? 1
Only one table shows up with the information 2
Active sources 10

Members online

Total: 44 (members: 1, guests: 43)
Robots: 205

Forum statistics

Threads
473,766
Messages
2,569,569
Members
45,042
Latest member
icassiem

Latest Threads

Top