I have a menu with selections:
<a class="nav4w" href="foo.html">buttontext&nbsp;</a>

Styled in an external style sheet as:

..nav4w {
padding:2px 0 3px 0;
display:block;
width:98%;
border-bottom:1px solid #300099;
margin-top:1px;
text-align:right;
text-decoration:none;
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:100%;
font-weight:normal;
overflow:hidden;
}

a.nav4w:link {color:#f8fafc;}
a.nav4w:hover {color:#330099;background-color:#f8fafc;}
a.nav4w:visited {color:#ffff00;} /*background-color:#3c93db;*/
a.nav4w:active {color:#ffffff;}

If I specify a background-color for the visited link, it doesn't change on
hover. Is this normal, or what am I doing wrong?

TIA,
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Ed Jay wrote:

> a.nav4w:link {color:#f8fafc;}
> a.nav4w:hover {color:#330099;background-color:#f8fafc;}
> a.nav4w:visited {color:#ffff00;} /*background-color:#3c93db;*/
> a.nav4w:active {color:#ffffff;}
>
> If I specify a background-color for the visited link, it doesn't
> change on hover. Is this normal, or what am I doing wrong?

You have the order wrong above. Needs to be:
link, visited, (focus,) hover, active

--
-bts
-"Las Vegas Has Animals"

Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>> a.nav4w:link {color:#f8fafc;}
>> a.nav4w:hover {color:#330099;background-color:#f8fafc;}
>> a.nav4w:visited {color:#ffff00;} /*background-color:#3c93db;*/
>> a.nav4w:active {color:#ffffff;}
>>
>> If I specify a background-color for the visited link, it doesn't
>> change on hover. Is this normal, or what am I doing wrong?
>
>You have the order wrong above. Needs to be:
>link, visited, (focus,) hover, active

Thank you...
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

At 11:27:16 on Sat, 29 Mar 2008, Ed Jay <edMbj@aes-intl.com> wrote in
<gf2tu3le195mqu0l9ih375mti3sip5ppfr@4ax.com>:

>Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:
>
>>Ed Jay wrote:
>>
>>> a.nav4w:link {color:#f8fafc;}
>>> a.nav4w:hover {color:#330099;background-color:#f8fafc;}
>>> a.nav4w:visited {color:#ffff00;} /*background-color:#3c93db;*/
>>> a.nav4w:active {color:#ffffff;}

>>You have the order wrong above. Needs to be:
>>link, visited, (focus,) hover, active
>
>Thank you...

A useful mnemonic to use in the future is Little Virgins Have Arses.
(For a while I tried suggesting Little Virgins Have Arms, but the former
proved the more memorable ... for some strange reason...!)
--
Molly Mockford
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

On Mar 30, 11:55 am, Molly Mockford <nospamnob...@mollymockford.me.uk>
wrote:
> At 11:27:16 on Sat, 29 Mar 2008, Ed Jay <ed...@aes-intl.com> wrote in
> <gf2tu3le195mqu0l9ih375mti3sip5p...@4ax.com>:
>
> >Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:
>
> >>Ed Jay wrote:
>
> >>> a.nav4w:link {color:#f8fafc;}
> >>> a.nav4w:hover {color:#330099;background-color:#f8fafc;}
> >>> a.nav4w:visited {color:#ffff00;} /*background-color:#3c93db;*/
> >>> a.nav4w:active {color:#ffffff;}
> >>You have the order wrong above. Needs to be:
> >>link, visited, (focus,) hover, active
>
> >Thank you...
>
> A useful mnemonic to use in the future is Little Virgins Have Arses.
> (For a while I tried suggesting Little Virgins Have Arms, but the former
> proved the more memorable ... for some strange reason...!)

A better solution yet would be to explain the actual CSS rules
priority for links so to use either preferred way out of many to keep
the right priority. Otherwise all these "right orders" and "little
virgins" brings way too much of voodooism into styling. Just like
someone would making "Be Red" and "Rise Blue" slogans to memorize the
div order below for a particular color instead of understanding the
CSS rule override mechanics :-)
div {
color: blue;
}
div {
color: red;
}

The topic in question was once explained in details at
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....063946e8b87860

Beauregard T. Shagnasty vertrouwde ons toe:
> Ed Jay wrote:
>
>> a.nav4w:link {color:#f8fafc;}
>> a.nav4w:hover {color:#330099;background-color:#f8fafc;}
>> a.nav4w:visited {color:#ffff00;} /*background-color:#3c93db;*/
>> a.nav4w:active {color:#ffffff;}
>>
>> If I specify a background-color for the visited link, it doesn't
>> change on hover. Is this normal, or what am I doing wrong?
>
> You have the order wrong above. Needs to be:
> link, visited, (focus,) hover, active
>

Not according to Eric Meyer

http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/20...e-link-states/

--
Rob

VK wrote:
>
> A better solution yet would be to explain ............

<http://meyerweb.com/eric/css/link-specificity.html>

--
Gus

Rob Waaijenberg wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty vertrouwde ons toe:
>> Ed Jay wrote:
>>
>>> a.nav4w:link {color:#f8fafc;}
>>> a.nav4w:hover {color:#330099;background-color:#f8fafc;}
>>> a.nav4w:visited {color:#ffff00;} /*background-color:#3c93db;*/
>>> a.nav4w:active {color:#ffffff;}
>>>
>>> If I specify a background-color for the visited link, it doesn't
>>> change on hover. Is this normal, or what am I doing wrong?
>>
>> You have the order wrong above. Needs to be:
>> link, visited, (focus,) hover, active
>
> Not according to Eric Meyer
>
> http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/20...e-link-states/

Note that the content and comments on this linked page are at odds.
Looks like about half of the respondents favor :focus after :hover, and
the other half prefer it before.

http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/20...e-link-states/

"¡§:link, :visited, :focus, :hover, :active¡¨ should be the most useful
way [¡K]."

"I remember reading something a few years ago that used this piece of
wisdom to remember the order:
[L]uther [V]andross [F]ans [H]ate [A]bba.

Brilliant."

"I¡¦m with Jens. My favourite rule is ¡§Lord Vader¡¦s Former Handle
Anakin¡¨."

For :focus, it probably doesn't matter very much, as long as
link, visited, hover, active
are in this order.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista

On Mar 30, 5:29 pm, Gus Richter <gusrich...@netscape.net> wrote:
> VK wrote:
>
> > A better solution yet would be to explain ............
>
> <http://meyerweb.com/eric/css/link-specificity.html>

The linked resource is erroneous, it just repeats the urban legend
about the "right order". Please read the post I linked with the proper
explanation:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....063946e8b87860
The link's own classes have bigger weight than universal dynamic
classes.

> > <http://meyerweb.com/eric/css/link-specificity.html>
>
> The linked resource is erroneous, it just repeats the urban legend
> about the "right order". Please read the post I linked with the proper
> explanation:http://groups.google.com/group/comp....horing.stylesh...
> The link's own classes have bigger weight than universal dynamic
> classes.

I can only assume that the "right order" urban legend is based on
something like http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/selector.html#q15 and
similar b.s. There is a lot of writing at W3C to laugh about...

P.S.

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
<html lang="en-US">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-type"
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<title>Demo</title>
<style type="text/css">
a {
font-weight: bold;
}
a:link {
color: green;
}
a:hover {
color: blue;
}
a:link:hover {
color: red;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<p><a>A element</a></p>
<p><a name="foobar">Anchor</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.example.com/foobar.html">Link</a></p>
</body>
</html>

On Mar 30, 7:05 pm, VK <schools_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > <http://meyerweb.com/eric/css/link-specificity.html>
>
> > The linked resource is erroneous, it just repeats the urban legend
> > about the "right order". Please read the post I linked with the proper
> > explanation:http://groups.google.com/group/comp....horing.stylesh...
> > The link's own classes have bigger weight than universal dynamic
> > classes.
>
> I can only assume that the "right order" urban legend is based on
> something likehttp://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/selector.html#q15and
> similar b.s. There is a lot of writing at W3C to laugh about...
>
> P.S.
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
> <html lang="en-US">
> <head>
> <meta http-equiv="Content-type"
> content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
> <title>Demo</title>
> <style type="text/css">
> a {
> font-weight: bold;}
>
> a:link {
> color: green;}
>
> a:hover {
> color: blue;}
>
> a:link:hover {
> color: red;}
>
> </style>
> </head>
> <body>
> <p><a>A element</a></p>
> <p><a name="foobar">Anchor</a></p>
> <p><a href="http://www.example.com/foobar.html">Link</a></p>
> </body>
> </html>

Also if anyone wants to play more with link's own classes vs.
universal dynamic classes:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
<html lang="en-US">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-type"
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<title>Demo</title>
<style type="text/css">
a {
font-weight: bold;
}
a:link {
color: green;
}
a:visited {
color: cyan;
}
a:hover {
color: blue;
}
a:link:hover {
color: red;
}
a:visited:hover {
color: yellow;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<p><a>A element</a></p>
<p><a name="foobar">Anchor</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.example.com/123456.html">Non-visited Link</a></
p>
<p><a href="http://www.google.com">Visited Link</a></p>
</body>
</html>

VK <schools_ring@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Mar 30, 5:29 pm, Gus Richter <gusrich...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> VK wrote:
>>
>> > A better solution yet would be to explain ............
>>
>> <http://meyerweb.com/eric/css/link-specificity.html>
>
> The linked resource is erroneous, it just repeats the urban legend
> about the "right order".

Not urban legend, but close. It was needed some time ago, to avoid hitting
a browser bug. I forget which browser, it was around the time of IE & NS
4.x or 5.x versions. Back when CSS support was newer and much dodgier than
it is now.

So there was some truth to it, at one time. But it's reached dogma, or
cargo-cult status now. The relevant bugs don't bite current browsers,
but people just keep repeating it anyway.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

> >> <http://meyerweb.com/eric/css/link-specificity.html>
>
> > The linked resource is erroneous, it just repeats the urban legend
> > about the "right order".
>
> Not urban legend, but close. It was needed some time ago, to avoid hitting
> a browser bug. I forget which browser, it was around the time of IE & NS
> 4.x or 5.x versions.

NN 4.x did not provide :hover support at all, NN 5.x was never
released and NN 6.x already has :hover working in the way IE did. The
truth is much more sad than that. The post with proper explanation I
linked before is a part of a thread where I was OP:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....16738337b06f97
Despite NN 4.x didn't support :hover, it was still used to beautify
pages in IE 4.x at least. Just like many others I hit a:hover styling
problem, failed to find any working explanation and by many tryouts I
found !important workaround. I used it for IE 4.x, IE 5.x, IE 6.x and
well possibly would keep using it till now if back in 2005 I wouldn't
get curious about this voodoo and got lucky to get an educated answer.
The same way the "right order" is another workaround of the same
problem found just like !important found by some unknown webmaster
back in 1998. The only difference is that the webmaster was somehow
connected with W3C and his trick got documented as an official CSS
behavior despite it was...
Here I do agree with you that "the right order" is indeed not a cargo
cult. A cargo cult is a set of semi-sacral but pointless actions which
is not a case here. Unless English language already has a term for
that, I would propose "rain call". In one South America village the
air is so humid that strong acoustic vibrations lead to concentration
and small rain. This way village dwellers are going to the top of the
hill, sing a song to their gods out loud and the rain comes. So that
could be called (both mine !important and W3C's right order) as "rain
call": thus a set of empirically found actions leading to the desired
results despite the actual mechanics of the phenomenon is completely
misunderstood by actors.

On 30 Mar, 15:27, VK <schools_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > <http://meyerweb.com/eric/css/link-specificity.html>
>
> The linked resource is erroneous, it just repeats the urban legend
> about the "right order".

Read Meyer's page you fruitbat. He explains it, and he explains it
clearly enough for an idiot to follow. If you know an idiot, perhaps
they'll explain it to you.

On Mar 31, 4:47 pm, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> On 30 Mar, 15:27, VK <schools_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > <http://meyerweb.com/eric/css/link-specificity.html>
>
> > The linked resource is erroneous, it just repeats the urban legend
> > about the "right order".
>
> Read Meyer's page you fruitbat.

I did.

> He explains it, and he explains it
> clearly enough for an idiot to follow.

His explanations are wrong, but his receipt does work: it happens, as
I explained before. By a turn a coin it could be another working
receipt, say !important which is maybe even easier as it doesn't
require to memorize some obscure poetry for the "right order".

> If you know an idiot, perhaps
> they'll explain it to you.

I don't really understand your excitement with all these "idiot"s
around. Just any beloved poetry to place rules in the "right order": I
pretty much sure that you personally don't need any mnemonic er by
now so no need to break your coding habits.

All I want to do is to stop this "use right order" voodoo and start
proper CSS rules explanation.

VK <schools_ring@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Mar 31, 4:47 pm, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>> On 30 Mar, 15:27, VK <schools_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > <http://meyerweb.com/eric/css/link-specificity.html>
>>
>> > The linked resource is erroneous, it just repeats the urban legend
>> > about the "right order".
>>
>> Read Meyer's page you fruitbat.
>
> I did.
>
>> He explains it, and he explains it
>> clearly enough for an idiot to follow.
>
> His explanations are wrong,

Can you say where? It looked like a good explanation to me.

<snip>
> All I want to do is to stop this "use right order" voodoo and start
> proper CSS rules explanation.

What is the proper explanation and why is using the right order voodoo?

--
Ben.

VK wrote:
> On Mar 30, 5:29 pm, Gus Richter <gusrich...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> <http://meyerweb.com/eric/css/link-specificity.html>
>
> The linked resource is erroneous,

How so? Does it lie about anything?

> it just repeats the urban legend
> about the "right order".

Your use of the term "urban legend" is strange. There's nothing mythical
about the correct order of link pseudo-classes. Those acronyms used by
various sources are just to people remember, and there is nothing
"erroneous" about it.

What people really need is a little common sense.

> Please read the post I linked with the proper
> explanation:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp....063946e8b87860

Your logic is flawed. Visited links that have focus or are active are
screwed. That's poor usability, but maybe that's what you wanted. :-\

--
Berg