> The ugly part is to force <a> to a block. I might as well replace <a> with a > truely block element and change to use scripting to handle the visual cue > change / click, but that would seem overkill for a simple task like this. Is > there a strong opposition to to the way I use <a> above for this task?
There's nothing ugly at all about making anchors display as blocks. Changing an element's display type is no worse than changing its font or borders. Remember, (x)HTML is for describing the content, and CSS is for presenting it. If it's a link, it should be marked up as a link, not as a div with javascript. If you want a link to be presented as a block element, well, that's what CSS was made for. Using a div simply because you like the default display type of block would be along the same lines as using an h1 simply because you like the default font size of 2em. ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
