problem with div tag for multiple a href

Welcome to TWF Tonka,

Glad you got it sorted

first thing I notice in your code is that your using the same colors for hover and link ...

#ft a:link { font-family: Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 8pt; color: #D93917; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none}
#ft a:visited { font-family: Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 8pt; color: #666666; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none}
#ft a:hover { font-family: Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 8pt; color: #D93917; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none}
#ft a:active { font-family: Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 8pt; color: #000000; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none}

Secondly - you will always run into problems with using all the link tags (ie.. hover, visited, etc..) because once all the pages are visited they will not revert back to a hover state, just the visited state. I recommend using a simple A:Hover tag for the rollovers, and use a class for the links (ie. if you want your link to not have underlines use the text-decoration: none in your a href class)

What's a hoover state?

The correct order is the order of occurence:

a
a:link
a:active
a:visited
a:hover

I believe :hover and :focus don't need to be in the flow.

Unless you use linked pseudo classes, like so: http://dbaron.org/css/test/pseudos2

thanks everyone, appreciate the input.

aaron,
not sure what you mean by: A:Hover tag for the rollovers.

suzanne,
the order of occurence that I used came from: http://www.w3schools.com/css/tryit.asp?filename=trycss_link. I've read conflicting info regarding this, am now seeing what dbaron has to say. Thanks for the link.

thanks again

--------------------------------------------------

okay, now I'm confused:

I'm now using:
:link, :visited { text-decoration: none; }
:link { font-family: Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; color: #666666; }
:visited { font-family: Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; color: #EF846D; }
:link:hover, :visited:hover { font-family: Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; color: #D93917; }
:link:active, :visited:active { font-family: Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 8pt; font-weight: bold; color: fuchsia; }

and my mailto unvisited is responding correctly but the unvisited links at the bottom are not showing the #666666 color.
help (http://www.theproteinbakery.com/info/contest.html)

Firstly you have:

What are you trying to do there?

And secondly, you have:

You need to either define an a tag like so:

or, you need to define a class to it like so:

Get what i'm shooting at?

thanks, i get what you're going for but this is where my code came from:
http://dbaron.org/css/1999/09/links_demo and this works fine.

i'm tired, dizzy and have an array to understand

Hmm curious...

*takes another look at the site*

Intersting how they have valid XHTML but not CSS... lol

(RENEGADE! NO SPACES! .link:link if you insist)

If that's the order that works, super (I confess I rarely use :active). The point of joining psuedo classes is to set conditional, or context. I also don't use pseudo classes on their own -- does that validate?

Read it out:

:link:hover makes no sense, because it says the same thing as :hover -- for a link, when hovering over it, do this.

Within your stylesheet, it doesn't make sense to put :link:hover and :visited:hover, either, as you have the same style set for both. Simplify, and just use :hover.

(I use the element with the psuedo class as I'm pretty sure it's needed, but I'd love to hear for sure one way or another).

Note that I took out the common elements and put them in the a {} declaration, and removed other redundancies.

8pt is way too small and the wrong unit measure for the web. Since you wouldn't use psuedo classes for print, that should change.

thanks Suzanne!
luv the *read it out loud* . the 8pt is bold block caps... will check it in 9pt but... [ooops, that would be 11px - works fine]. so you're saying I should use pixel units? i do remember reading some info about this and it was a bit confusing. why would you use pixels instead of pt?

tia
tonka

--------------------------------------

WoW! thanks a bunch suzanne!!!
while here I've read over a couple of threads where you have helped out. You're *fab*. Thank you! I really want my work to validate (unfortunately the flash trashes that but...) and am tryin very hard to understand it *all* and at times it can be daunting but thanks to great forums like this i still have 2 strands of hair left.

Hey, it takes a while until it comes natural, just keep plugging at it.

For web, use px or em or %. Px and Em/% require different thinking on structure, and % sometimes has wonky results.

As always, the audience should dictate what you use.

In all cases, pt is for print, though.

And hey, you're welcome, thanks for the compliment! I'm blushing!

Quote: Originally posted by Suzanne
(RENEGADE! NO SPACES! .link:link if you insist)

Sorry, forgot to delete the spaces

I'm going to have to give you a noogie, Renegade. Like from a big sister to a pesty but eager little brother.

http://www.macromedia.com/desdev/mx/dreamweaver/articles/flash_satay.html

you may find that helpful, re: flash embedding and standards.

thanks suzanne, don't have the MX suite yet, been holdin' off

Well it's not just for MX, it's really how to embed Flash in a standards-compliant way.

hey suzanne,

been there. I was at A List Apart (where this hack originated), the other day and read about this. Afterwards I went into the discussion forum of this hack http://www.alistapart.com/stories/flashsatay/discuss/ and decided that I don't want to have to go to extremes of hacking my sites to be compliant particularly due to the fact that standards change. My stance is that by showing that I am attempting to comply with the standards it will help because that will have to be enough. Thanks a bunch.

c.