At 19:23 (London time), on 4/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >In the light of the pseudoclass and class having the same name and >smart-alec browsers trying to correct perceived errors, could this >then be a case of misinterpretation by IE6? Might it not be better to >avoid using 'reserved' words for class/id names in case this sort of >thing happened (I guess a test would be, if the class name were >changed, does IE6 still not recognise the issue)? It's not something >I've ever encountered myself, just wondering...
I agree with this; although I don't know if it is the root of Cole's problem, I would always try and avoid using reserved names for other purposes (in this case, as noted, you've given your class the same name as an existing pseudoclass that most browsers (not IE) will recognise and act on automatically. Whilst it's true that it /shouldn't/ make any difference (in an ideal, bug-free world) because .active and :active are /technically/ different, I would say 'why take the chance'? Cole: Try renaming your css class to a non-reserved word like 'activated', update the markup accordingly, and see if it helps. It might not, but at least then you'll know that your problem is definitely NOT caused by using a reserved name, and can cross it off the list of suspects. -- Rick Lecoat ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
