[thesite] Additions to default CSS file

[aardvark]

> From: ".jeff" <jeff at members.evolt.org>
> >
> > right now we've got:
> > a:link
> > a:visited
> > a:hover
> >
> > so, change the :hover to :active, but don't add it...
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 
> huh?  i think that's even worse.  out of the four pseudo classes,
> :active is by far the least used.  however, in the interest of user
> controlled stylesheets in the future, don't you think it has a place?

my bad...

i was looking at the CSS1 spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-
CSS1#anchor-pseudo-classes) when i wrote that, which has only 3 
pseudo-classes, with hover not being one of them... as such, i 
figured we'd cut the replace the incorrect one, that's all... but 
looking at the CSS2 spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-
CSS2/selector.html#dynamic-pseudo-classes), yeah, go for it... i'm 
not too picky since it has such a brief appearance to make...

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > > *but* there is nothing styling the <a> tag, which is
> > > what i'm saying is the problem.  we just need to
> > > throw a class of pagetitle2 on the <a> tag in that
> > > cell and put the corresponding css in the stylesheet.
> >
> > *why*?  i don't see why we need to do that, it hasn't
> > been necessary for a year now, no one seems to have
> > problems with it as-is...
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 
> agreed.  and so long as we're the only ones providing the stylesheets
> for the site it will likely not be an issue.  however, if we allow
> users to create their own *then* it will become a problem.

this is true, but it goes back to the relationship between elements 
that i tried to create, so that only a few colors would be needed, 
which would then color a number of elements a piece... the 
vestigial comments are still in isaac.css...

since, however, i think the approach now is to let the user 
customize every element regardless of other elements, then yes, 
there is the potential a user could make something disappear... but 
if we're going to give the user that control, then he/she should be 
capable of not fixing those things... i don't think we need to idiot-
proof it for our audience...

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > i guess i need to know why the <a> needs a class...  so
> > far, i haven't heard anything, unless i've missed it in
> > the early part of the thread...
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 
> yes, i think you must have missed it because i had a very succinct
> argument for it complete with an example.

er... yep, i missed it...

> go to http://test.evolt.org/
> login
> go to http://test.evolt.org/member/index.html?action=signup2 and
> select evoltoldschool.css as your stylesheet click save styles go to

cool, you've got AFistApart in there... i still like stealth better -- 
namely because no one else who saw it could read anything...

> http://test.evolt.org/article/view/17/16286/ notice the category
> (below the date) is invisible?

yep...

> now, while still at this page, imagine if the cell to the right which
> contains the article title and author link was this same blue?  the
> author link would be invisible as well.  classing (and styling) these
> links separately from the rest of the links in the main content area
> allow us to resolve this problem now and in the future.
> 
> make sense?

does now, yeah... just was lacking context...

and yes, i see your point...

i think a better solution, however, is ensuring the predefined CSS 
files don't make that mistake...

the fallback should be classing...

IOW, my preferences/arguments still stand... (like allowing our 
users to mess it up because we trust they might actually go and 
fix it)...

er... am i making sense now (so sleepy)?