On 8/1/05, Steve Clay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Monday, August 1, 2005, 4:49:35 PM, Lst Recv wrote:
> > Is there a simple way (without having to give each link a class) of
> > using CSS to change the background color on text links but not images?
>
> CSS can't do it (selectors can't look down the document tree)...
>
>
That's no completely correct...CSS, in a way, DOES look at the document
tree. For instance, when you have a selector like:
ul ul li
isn't that the same as saying "any li that is in a ul that is a child of a
ul"? ... sorta like traversing the document tree, isn't it (in a certain
way, I suppose)?
In this particular case,
Monday, August 1, 2005, 4:49:35 PM, Lst Recv wrote:
> Is there a simple way (without having to give each link a class) of
> using CSS to change the background color on text links but not images?
My suggestion would be this:
--snip--
<style type="text/css">
body {
background-color:#ccc;
}
img {
border:none;
vertical-align:bottom;
}
a:link, a:visited {
background-color:#f00;
}
a:hover {
background-color:#0ff;
}
a img {
background-color:#ff0;
}
--snip--
<a href="#"><img src="empty.gif" width="100" height="100" alt="Transparent
Gif"><br />Text Link</a>
--snip--
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but *technically* speaking, I don't think
inline elements have children, do they? So, for instance,
a > img
is wrong unless
a { display:block;}
Then any 'a' can have child elements...
I think i'm starting to go off on a tangent...
Jon
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
