Christian Heilmann wrote: > However, as sexy as highlighting with CSS only is, it does not make > sense from a usability/accessibility point of view, as the current > page _should not be a link_. Personally I highlight the current page > with a strong - as this also makes sense without CSS and use the body > id coupled with the nav id and the strong to apply the style. > (http://www.csstoolshed.com/cocking/ page 8)
but if you are using server includes, you cannot do this-adding a strong tag to a specific link in the include. That's why many developers take the other approach. Additionally, the bottom (footer) links can be a "top level" category, where additional pages (3rd or deeper levels) fall under that category or section. I'm just adding to the conversation as to WHY someone might take the other approach. With includes, you cannot make them different on each page, except via some overriding (specificity) unique combination of selectors, often started with the body tag and applying a class or id to it. Just to throw in another thought on this - there are many times that you might have page functions that display or don't display, yet are part of an include. AND, you might be also setting the "selected" state of main and footer links (even utility type links)... in many cases, I find I have to go with classes *because* I can use more than one class, where I cannot use more than one ID on the body tag. HTH donna ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
