CSS: active link?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Frank P., Aug 3, 2004.

  1. Frank P.

    Frank P. Guest

    A.menu {
    COLOR:#003366;
    font-weight: bold;
    text-decoration: underline;
    }

    A.menu:hover {
    COLOR:#990000;
    text-decoration : none;
    }

    A.menu:active {
    COLOR: #FFFFFF;
    background:#003366;
    text-decoration: none;
    }

    This works fine in IE. However A.menu:active does not work in
    Mozilla/K-Meleon, hover does. Why? Is there a way around this?

    F.y.i., it's a menu in a frameset, no lectures on how bad using frames
    is, please.

    Frank P.
    Frank P., Aug 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Frank P.

    Sam Hughes Guest

    Frank P. <> wrote in
    news::

    > A.menu {
    > COLOR:#003366;
    > font-weight: bold;
    > text-decoration: underline;
    > }
    >
    > A.menu:hover {
    > COLOR:#990000;
    > text-decoration : none;
    > }
    >
    > A.menu:active {
    > COLOR: #FFFFFF;
    > background:#003366;
    > text-decoration: none;
    > }
    >
    > This works fine in IE. However A.menu:active does not work in
    > Mozilla/K-Meleon, hover does. Why? Is there a way around this?


    That's because Gecko applies the active pseudo-class while the mouse
    button is being held down. If you want it to remain white, apply the
    rule to the focus pseudo-class as well.

    A.menu:active, A.menu:focus {
    COLOR: #FFFFFF;
    background:#003366;
    text-decoration: none;
    }

    By the way, if you're lazy, you can type #FFFFFF as #FFF in CSS. And #
    003366 can be #036. (#aabbcc can be #abc.)

    > F.y.i., it's a menu in a frameset, no lectures on how bad using frames
    > is, please.


    Let the framezoids be cast away into a pit with the followers of Mammon!
    :p

    --
    Accessible web designs go easily unnoticed;
    the others are remembered and avoided forever.
    Sam Hughes, Aug 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Frank P.

    C A Upsdell Guest

    "Sam Hughes" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9539DB551390Ahughesrpiedu@130.133.1.4...
    >
    > By the way, if you're lazy, you can type #FFFFFF as #FFF in CSS. And #
    > 003366 can be #036. (#aabbcc can be #abc.)


    #nnn is not supported by some legacy browsers.
    C A Upsdell, Aug 3, 2004
    #3
  4. Frank P.

    rf Guest

    C A Upsdell wrote
    > "Sam Hughes" <> wrote in message
    > >
    > > By the way, if you're lazy, you can type #FFFFFF as #FFF in CSS. And #
    > > 003366 can be #036. (#aabbcc can be #abc.)

    >
    > #nnn is not supported by some legacy browsers.


    Which specific ones?
    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Aug 3, 2004
    #4
  5. "rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote:

    > C A Upsdell wrote
    >> "Sam Hughes" <> wrote in message
    >> >
    >> > By the way, if you're lazy, you can type #FFFFFF as #FFF in CSS.
    >> > And # 003366 can be #036. (#aabbcc can be #abc.)

    >>
    >> #nnn is not supported by some legacy browsers.

    >
    > Which specific ones?


    None. Or none that would matter - such browsers would get CSS horribly
    wrong anyway, so the best you could do with them, if you care, is to use
    some of the usual tricks to prevent them seeing your style sheet at all.

    In HTML, color="#FFF" is incorrect (but valid), of course. But let's not
    confuse this with CSS.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
    Jukka K. Korpela, Aug 3, 2004
    #5
  6. Frank P.

    rf Guest

    Jukka K. Korpela wrote
    > "rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote:
    >
    > > C A Upsdell wrote


    > >> #nnn is not supported by some legacy browsers.

    > >
    > > Which specific ones?

    >
    > None. Or none that would matter - such browsers would get CSS horribly
    > wrong anyway, so the best you could do with them, if you care, is to use
    > some of the usual tricks to prevent them seeing your style sheet at all.


    Thankyou for that information Jukka. My thoughts exactly :)

    However I was calling C A Upsdell to task, asking for provision of a browser
    to follow up the above claim.

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Aug 3, 2004
    #6
  7. Frank P.

    brucie Guest

    in post: <news:FbGPc.30186$>
    rf <rf@.invalid> said:

    >>>> #nnn is not supported by some legacy browsers.


    >>> Which specific ones?


    >> None. Or none that would matter - such browsers would get CSS horribly
    >> wrong anyway, so the best you could do with them, if you care, is to use
    >> some of the usual tricks to prevent them seeing your style sheet at all.


    > Thankyou for that information Jukka. My thoughts exactly :)


    but... but... but... 'n' isn't part of the base16 number system.


    --
    i h e a r v o i c e s
    brucie, Aug 3, 2004
    #7
  8. Frank P.

    Nik Coughin Guest

    brucie wrote:
    > in post: <news:FbGPc.30186$>
    > rf <rf@.invalid> said:
    >
    >>>>> #nnn is not supported by some legacy browsers.

    >
    >>>> Which specific ones?

    >
    >>> None. Or none that would matter - such browsers would get CSS
    >>> horribly wrong anyway, so the best you could do with them, if you
    >>> care, is to use some of the usual tricks to prevent them seeing
    >>> your style sheet at all.

    >
    >> Thankyou for that information Jukka. My thoughts exactly :)

    >
    > but... but... but... 'n' isn't part of the base16 number system.


    My thoughts exactly brucie. I think the OP will find that colors using
    base24 are not supported by ANY browser. AFAIK.
    Nik Coughin, Aug 3, 2004
    #8
  9. Frank P.

    Nik Coughin Guest

    Nik Coughin wrote:
    > brucie wrote:
    >> in post: <news:FbGPc.30186$>
    >> rf <rf@.invalid> said:
    >>
    >>>>>> #nnn is not supported by some legacy browsers.

    >>
    >>>>> Which specific ones?

    >>
    >>>> None. Or none that would matter - such browsers would get CSS
    >>>> horribly wrong anyway, so the best you could do with them, if you
    >>>> care, is to use some of the usual tricks to prevent them seeing
    >>>> your style sheet at all.

    >>
    >>> Thankyou for that information Jukka. My thoughts exactly :)

    >>
    >> but... but... but... 'n' isn't part of the base16 number system.

    >
    > My thoughts exactly brucie. I think the OP will find that colors
    > using base24 are not supported by ANY browser. AFAIK.


    My apologies. Mr Upsdell, not Mr P.
    Nik Coughin, Aug 3, 2004
    #9
  10. Frank P.

    Toby Inkster Guest

    rf wrote:
    > C A Upsdell wrote
    >
    >> #nnn is not supported by some legacy browsers.

    >
    > Which specific ones?


    Any of them ones what don't support CSS?

    CAUpsdellsMadeUpBrowserThatSupportsCSSButNotThreeDigitColours version 2.4?

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Aug 3, 2004
    #10
  11. Frank P.

    Frank P. Guest

    Sam Hughes <> op 3 Aug 2004 01:34:39 GMT:

    > That's because Gecko applies the active pseudo-class while the mouse
    > button is being held down. If you want it to remain white, apply the
    > rule to the focus pseudo-class as well.
    >
    > A.menu:active, A.menu:focus {
    > COLOR: #FFFFFF;
    > background:#003366;
    > text-decoration: none;


    Thank you. It's certainly an improvement but things in
    Mozilla/K-Meleon are still different from IE. The link background only
    remains white until another mouse click (anywhere on the screen),
    whereas in IE it remains white until a mouse click on another menu
    link.

    Frank P.
    Frank P., Aug 3, 2004
    #11
  12. Frank P.

    rf Guest

    Frank P. wrote:

    > Thank you. It's certainly an improvement but things in
    > Mozilla/K-Meleon are still different from IE. The link background only
    > remains white until another mouse click (anywhere on the screen),
    > whereas in IE it remains white until a mouse click on another menu
    > link.


    They are different browsers. Get used to it :)

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
    rf, Aug 3, 2004
    #12
    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:
    1,035
    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:
    783
    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:
    397
    Fran Cotton
    Jul 11, 2003
  4. crispy
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    12,482
    crispy
    Dec 13, 2003
  5. carlos seramos
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    454
    carlos seramos
    Aug 1, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page