which is correct?

.footercontent a:link {
color:#FFFFFF;
text-decoration:none;
}

or

a.footercontent:link {
color:#FFFFFF;
text-decoration:none;
}

---

__________________________________
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity

Are you trying to target links within an area with the class "footercontent"?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2013 08:05AM by ka jowct.

Not sure what they were doing. This is me coming into a company where all this was already done. All I know is that they had the css set up like the second example and the links where not showing up. I changed it to the first example and they magically reappeared. But I'm by no means a css expert.

---

__________________________________
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity

as ka jowct asks, is the class on the anchor or on it's parent (or ancestor)?

The link psuedo class is rarely used anymore...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2013 08:04AM by wolfcry911.

You've solved the problem, since one way works, and the other does not. I'm just getting back into this stuff, but I would have written it the first way.

[www.w3schools.com]

Two authors whose books I have relied on for years are Charles Wyke-Smith and Dan Cederholm.

[simplebits.com]
[www.stylinwithcss.com]

I also like this site:
[css.maxdesign.com.au]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2013 08:14AM by ka jowct.

Here it is in context...more or less...

<tr>
<td id="footercontentpane" runat="server" class="footercontent">
<div align="center" class="footercontent">
<a href="[www.xxx.aspx"]; class="footercontent">Returns</a>
</div>
</td>
</tr>

---

__________________________________
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity

Is the whole site table-based?

ugh

table based layout, deprecated attributes, needless divs...

for what it's worth both examples should have worked - there must be something else going on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2013 08:21AM by wolfcry911.

Quote
ka jowct
Is the whole site table-based?

Quote
wolfcry911
ugh

table based layout, deprecated attributes, needless divs...

Yes. And yes.

---

__________________________________
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity

Quote
wolfcry911
for what it's worth both examples should have worked - there must be something else going on.

That wouldn't surprise me. There is so much junk laying around on the server, I'm having a hard rime figuring out what is what. Plus it's Dot Net Nuke which I've never messed with so I'm trying to figure that out too.

---

__________________________________
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity

Is there really a semicolon in the a tag?

Could be something like this:

<tr>
<td id="footercontentpane" runat="server" class="footercontent">
<div align="center">
<a href="#">Returns</a>
</div>
</td>
</tr>

.footercontent a:link {
color:#FFFFFF;
text-decoration:none;
}

Or like this:

<tr>
<td id="footercontentpane" runat="server">
<div align="center" >
<a href="#" class="footercontent">Returns</a>
</div>
</td>
</tr>

.footercontent {
color:#FFFFFF;
text-decoration:none;
}

And if you have a hover, active or visited state the css would be like:

.footercontent:hover {
color:#FFFFFF;
text-decoration:none;
}

You shouldn't add a before .footercontent - so just use .footercontent instead of a.footercontent - all adding the a does is make things slower.

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: [macswap.org] LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]

Quote
M A V I C
You shouldn't add a before .footercontent - so just use .footercontent instead of a.footercontent - all adding the a does is make things slower.

Generally this is true. But in this case the anchor, its div parent and its ancestor td all have the same class so it may be necessary to differentiate. It may also be needed for specificity.

Quote
wolfcry911

Quote
M A V I C
You shouldn't add a before .footercontent - so just use .footercontent instead of a.footercontent - all adding the a does is make things slower.

Generally this is true. But in this case the anchor, its div parent and its ancestor td all have the same class so it may be necessary to differentiate. It may also be needed for specificity.

Well, the fact they all have the same class like that is another problem. Solving one problem by creating another isn't a good answer. Hence why in my examples I stripped those classes out.

But you talking about specificity... how much do you know CSS? I know a few web geeks on this board, didn't think you were one of them. You code much?

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: [macswap.org] LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]

Quote
M A V I C

Quote
wolfcry911

Quote
M A V I C
You shouldn't add a before .footercontent - so just use .footercontent instead of a.footercontent - all adding the a does is make things slower.

Generally this is true. But in this case the anchor, its div parent and its ancestor td all have the same class so it may be necessary to differentiate. It may also be needed for specificity.

Well, the fact they all have the same class like that is another problem. Solving one problem by creating another isn't a good answer. Hence why in my examples I stripped those classes out.

But you talking about specificity... how much do you know CSS? I know a few web geeks on this board, didn't think you were one of them. You code much?

He codes much.

---

__________________________________
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity