On Apr 10, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Philip TAYLOR wrote: > May I express a personal wish that this behaviour be under > user control ? Whilst I fully understand David Baron's > rationale for the change, I do not believe that it is the > responsibility of browsers to work around security deficiencies > that arise from the correct implementation of W3C standards. > If the CSS, (X)HTML, and/or related (e.g., HTTP) specifications, > either individually or when taken together, lead to a security > deficiency, then this should be addressed at the specification > level and not by mandatory changes to a browser which would > cause the latter to deviate from the specification(s).
Wrong forum for browser feature request(s). To remain on topic for this list, CSS 2.1:5.11.2 contains this sentence: > UAs may therefore treat all links as unvisited links, or implement other > measures to preserve the user's privacy while rendering visited and unvisited > links differently. http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector.html#link-pseudo-classes Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://l-c-n.com/ ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
