CSS:a:link与仅一个(不带:link部分) [英] CSS: a:link vs just a (without the :link part)

问题描述

因此我们需要对CSS锚伪类使用以下顺序

a:link    { color: red }    
a:visited { color: blue }  
a:hover   { color: yellow } 
a:active  { color: lime }  

但是我的问题是，为什么要麻烦a:link部分?相反，以上内容(也许不是很清楚)相对于:

有什么优势?

a { color:red; } /* notice no :link part */
a:visited { color: blue; }
etc.,etc.

解决方案

:link选择未访问的链接，即:浏览器未访问的具有href属性的锚点(对于浏览器供应商具有的任何定义)代表访问过").

如果它具有:link，则它将永远不匹配<h1><a name="foo">A foo to be linked to</a></h1>

(尽管这些天您应该使用<h1 id="foo">A foo to be linked to</h1>.)

除此之外，它的用途更加明确.

 a         { color: orange }
a:link    { color: blue }    
a:visited { color: indigo }  
a:hover   { color: green } 
a:active  { color: lime } 

   <a>my anchor without href</a>
  <br><br>
  <a href="http://somelinkhere.com">my anchor without href</a> 

(它们也具有不同级别的特异性)

So we're required to use the following order for CSS anchor pseudo-classes

a:link    { color: red }    
a:visited { color: blue }  
a:hover   { color: yellow } 
a:active  { color: lime }  

But my question is why bother with the a:link part? Rather, is there any advantage to the above (other than perhaps clarity) over:

a { color:red; } /* notice no :link part */
a:visited { color: blue; }
etc.,etc.

解决方案

:link selects unvisited links, that is: anchors with an href attribute which have not been visited by the browser (for whatever definition the browser vendor has for "visited").

If it has :link then it will never match <h1><a name="foo">A foo to be linked to</a></h1>

(Although you should be using <h1 id="foo">A foo to be linked to</h1> these days.)

Aside from that, it does make it clearer what it is for.

a         { color: orange }
a:link    { color: blue }    
a:visited { color: indigo }  
a:hover   { color: green } 
a:active  { color: lime }

  <a>my anchor without href</a>
  <br><br>
  <a href="http://somelinkhere.com">my anchor without href</a>

(They also have different levels of specificity)

这篇关于CSS:a:link与仅一个(不带:link部分)的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！