link underline and no underline how to?

[jmaxsherkimer]

the site we're working on has some anchor links, you click them they
scroll to the bottom of the page with the answers to the questions
linked on to. is there anyway to make it so that the links are not
underlined when the page loads, when the user moves the mouse over
it's underlined, mouse out no underline. i tried:

<a href="#section1 4" class="drkblue0 8bold"
style="text-decoration:none ">

but that left the underline gone forever, the class there is just for
color, color does not change no need to,

also tried:

<a href="#section1 4" class="drkblue0 8bold"
style="text-decoration:none "
onmouseover="th is.style.textDe coration ='none';"
onmouseout="thi s.style.textDec oration='none'; ">

but this made it so there was no underline all the time, even if mouse
was over the text.

also tried

<a href="#section1 4" class="drkblue0 8bold"
onmouseover="th is.style.textDe coration ='none';"
onmouseout="thi s.style.textDec oration='none'; ">

but with this the line is there when the page loads.

as you can see i'm also not using style sheets to do this, because the
main person who does the styles on the site is out for a while, so we
want to try to avoid messing with this work, is it possible to do this
without style sheets like above, or is style sheets are needed can
someone show how to do it.

[Lachlan Hunt]

Neal wrote:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:31:03 +0200, Harrie
<di************ ******@hotmail. com> wrote:

Try this in the head:

<style>
<!--
a { text-decoration: none }
a:hover { text-decoration: underline }
//-->
</style>

Where you have //-->, it should be /*-->*/ since // is a JavaScript
comment, not a CSS comment. However, it's not completely necessary for
CSS, since CDO '<!--' and CDC '-->' are allowed within CSS, and thus
don't need to be commented out. I think, IIRC, they stand for Comment
Delimiter Open and Close, respectively.
Except leave out the comments - they're useless today. Unless you're
supporting really, really ancient browsers.

Yes, in most cases, they are essentially useless but not always. If the
the style sheet needs to contain either '&' or '<' for whatever reason,
then the comment delimiters are needed, otherwise it will be invalid markup.

eg.
<style type="text/css"><!--
x:before { content: '<'; }
x:after { content: '>'; }
--></style>
(where x is any selector that is valid in that context)

However, if the document is XHTML, then when it is correctly parsed as
XML, instead of tag soup, then all the styles will actually be ignored
since they are part of the comment. Thus, for XHTML, the following
needs to be used:

<style type="text/css"><![CDATA[
x:before { content: '<'; }
x:after { content: '>'; }
]]></style>

But, that will not work for existing tag soup parsers when an XHTML
document is served as text/html. If you are writing XHTML 1.0, and you
are using content negotiation to serve it as application/xhtml+xml or
text/html as required, then in order to handle both situations, you need
to use this slightly more complicated version:

<style type="text/css"><!--/*--><![CDATA[/*><!--*/
x:before { content: '<'; }
x:after { content: '>'; }
/*]]>*/--></style>

That will work for for both HTML and XHTML parsers. Similarly, for
scripts, there is another syntax that needs to be used in the same
situation.

<script type="text/javascript"><!--//--><![CDATA[//><!--
...
//--><!]]></script>

For a better explantation, if that was not good enough, see Hixie’s
XHTML advocacy document:
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/

Please sp***********@g mail.com
Thank you.

[Eric B. Bednarz]

Lachlan Hunt <sp***********@ gmail.com> writes:

<di************ ******@hotmail. com> wrote:

//-->
</style>

Where you have //-->, it should be /*-->*/ since // is a JavaScript
comment, not a CSS comment.

Oh; I thought it was a C++ comment.
Well, actually I thought it was no jolly good comment at all since we're
in an HTML authoring group here.
However, it's not completely necessary
for CSS, since CDO '<!--' and CDC '-->' are allowed within CSS,
Within the STYLE element type, you possibly wanted to say.
and
thus don't need to be commented out. I think, IIRC, they stand for
Comment Delimiter Open and Close, respectively.

s/Delimiter/Declaration

If the content model sees fit.

And yes, it's about the usual voodoo, pardon, bugwards compatibility.
--

Più Cabernet,
meno Internet.

[Harrie]

Lachlan Hunt said the following on 12/09/2004 02:49:

Where you have //-->, it should be /*-->*/ since // is a JavaScript
comment, not a CSS comment. However, it's not completely necessary for
CSS, since CDO '<!--' and CDC '-->' are allowed within CSS, and thus
don't need to be commented out. I think, IIRC, they stand for Comment
Delimiter Open and Close, respectively.

Hmmm, I think you're right, but the w3c validator doesn't complain about
it when it's in the <head>. It does if you put it in an external
stylesheet. Is this a bug in the validator or is it simply ignoring
anything between <!-- and -->?

--
Regards
Harrie

[Lachlan Hunt]

Harrie wrote:

Lachlan Hunt said the following on 12/09/2004 02:49:

Where you have //-->, it should be /*-->*/ since // is a JavaScript
comment, not a CSS comment. However, it's not completely necessary
for CSS, since CDO '<!--' and CDC '-->' are allowed within CSS, and
thus don't need to be commented out. I think, IIRC, they stand for
Comment Delimiter Open and Close, respectively.

Hmmm, I think you're right, but the w3c validator doesn't complain about
it when it's in the <head>. It does if you put it in an external
stylesheet. Is this a bug in the validator or is it simply ignoring
anything between <!-- and -->?

Which validator are you referring to? The Markup validator or the CSS
validator? I'll assume both, since I just checked it and neither
complained. It is still valid markup, so the W3C Markup validator will
not find any errors with it, but it is not checking the validity of the
CSS. I believe the CSS validator should find errors with a '//', though
I do not have time to go through the CSS spec to double check. If it's
not allowed within external stylesheets, I would assume the same is true
for internal stylesheets within a <style> element. But, that's more of
a CSS question, which isn't really relevant in ciwah.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/

Please sp***********@g mail.com
Thank you.

[Lachlan Hunt]

Eric B. Bednarz wrote:

Where you have //-->, it should be /*-->*/ since // is a JavaScript
comment, not a CSS comment.
Oh; I thought it was a C++ comment.

Yes, it is also, but that's where Java and JavaScript inherited the
comment syntax from.
Well, actually I thought it was no jolly good comment at all since we're
in an HTML authoring group here.

It is relevant as far as using them in HTML to hide comment tags from
script parsers.

However, it's not completely necessary
for CSS, since CDO '<!--' and CDC '-->' are allowed within CSS,

Within the STYLE element type, you possibly wanted to say.

Well, actually, they are valid within any CSS; just not in *all* places
within that CSS. They can be used wherever the CSS tokenization rules
say they're allowed. They just have no purpose within an external
stylesheet, as they are ignored by a CSS parser.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/

Please sp***********@g mail.com
Thank you.

[Tim]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:31:26 +0200,
Harrie <di************ ******@hotmail. com> posted:

just updated my own stylesheet (I used
a:link, a:visited and a:hover so I got it half right). The same is true
for the first rule I posted, so all should be like this I think?:

<style>
:link, :visited { text-decoration: none }
:link:hover, :visited:hover { text-decoration: underline }
</style>

Personally, I'd do that the other way around. It means that people can
INSTANTLY see where links are and NOT have to go wavering a mouse all over
the damn page to try and find where the links are, but can read the text of
links without underlines getting in the way when they do hover the mouse
over them.

I tend to hide the underlines for print media though, you can't click on a
piece of paper, and few browsers print out a footer showing where the links
would have lead to.

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

[Harrie]

Lachlan Hunt said the following on 12/09/2004 04:23:

Harrie wrote:

Hmmm, I think you're right, but the w3c validator doesn't complain
about it when it's in the <head>. It does if you put it in an external
stylesheet. Is this a bug in the validator or is it simply ignoring
anything between <!-- and -->?
Which validator are you referring to? The Markup validator or the CSS
validator? I'll assume both, since I just checked it and neither
complained. It is still valid markup, so the W3C Markup validator will
not find any errors with it, but it is not checking the validity of the

I was referring to the CSS validator, but I checked them both.
CSS. I believe the CSS validator should find errors with a '//', though
I do not have time to go through the CSS spec to double check. If it's
not allowed within external stylesheets, I would assume the same is true
for internal stylesheets within a <style> element. But, that's more of
a CSS question, which isn't really relevant in ciwah.

I have to do some reading on CSS myself, so I'll check it myself. Thanks
for your input on this.

--
Regards
Harrie

[Harrie]

Tim said the following on 12/09/2004 07:06:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:31:26 +0200,
Harrie <di************ ******@hotmail. com> posted:

just updated my own stylesheet (I used
a:link, a:visited and a:hover so I got it half right). The same is true
for the first rule I posted, so all should be like this I think?:

<style>
:link, :visited { text-decoration: none }
:link:hover, :visited:hover { text-decoration: underline }
</style>

Personally, I'd do that the other way around. It means that people can
INSTANTLY see where links are and NOT have to go wavering a mouse all over
the damn page to try and find where the links are, but can read the text of
links without underlines getting in the way when they do hover the mouse
over them.

I agree with you, but the OP asked specifically for this. Jukka and I
already pointed out that this is probabbly not a good idea.

--
Regards
Harrie

[Brian]

Harrie wrote:

is this header still needed when one uses inline
stylesheets?:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">

That's a new one by me. Where did you learn about this (pseudo-)header?

--
Brian (remove "invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Brian <us*****@juliet remblay.com.inv alid> wrote:

Harrie wrote:

is this header still needed when one uses inline stylesheets?:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">

That's a new one by me. Where did you learn about this (pseudo-)header?

Maybe from the HTML specification?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/styles.html#h-14.2.1

But I wonder if any browsers or other user agents have ever actually
cared the least about such constructs. After all, they assume CSS (in
some flavor - and you cannot specify the flavor in the media type)
as the style sheet language.

The construct is defined in HTML specs just for theoretical completeness.
Logically, a user agent needs to know what style sheet language is used
in style="..." attributes, so there must be _some_ way to tell the
language. But this doesn't really matter in practice, since CSS has
virtually no competition and is assumed by default.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html