Posted by dorayme on 08/29/06 22:49

In article <PjZIg.435$7_2.236@reader1.news.jippii.net>,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

> rf <rf@invalid.com> scripsit:
>
> >>> a, a:visited, a:hover, a:active {border:none}
> - -
> > More intriguing is that an a element doesn't have a border by default
> > anyway so why explicitly set the border to none?
>
> We cannot know whether <a> elements have borders by default; it's up to
> browsers (and user style sheet). I think some version of Opera had default
> borders for links. Then again, I don't see the point of trying to remove
> such borders if they exist; I'd expect them to exist for a reason, or by
> user's choice.
>
> > And what about the missing a:link?
>
> The selector "a" covers that, too, though with a lower specificity.

I have tended to use a rather than a:link because it is shorter
to type and does no harm in the contexts I use it. But It is
something to watch I guess.

As for the business of borders, last time I visited this issue I
got into a spat with a Gerard or Gerald. I was a bit mean to him.
I see a lot of point of removing such borders in some contexts.
Aesthetic point. It is no good banging on and on about this. Some
folk simply will not see the point and get all churchy no matter
what. And the what includes where it is blindingly obvious that
there is a table (no not an HTML table, relax everyone! Would
everyone please calm down! Stop being so goddamn jumpy and picky)
of clickable thumbnails.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]