Is there anyway to combine two selectors? such as:
#div:hover:not(.class)
Edit:
I understand this work as I wrote. However, how can I achieve a "hover" effect for a "LI" element , but exclude the hover effect when the mouse is over a certain "DIV' inside the LI?
E.G.
<li>Hello <div id="#no-hover">Bye</div> </li>
I would like to get a hover effect for the li:
li:hover{ text-color:#CCC; }
but somehow exclude the hover effect when the mouse is over the #no-hover div.
Any ideas?
Based on your question edit, to maximize browser compatibility (I mean, why not if you can?) you can get away with not using CSS3 selectors at all. Try this, assuming black is the default text color:
li, li:hover div#no-hover {
color: #000;
}
li:hover {
color: #ccc;
}
Although you may want to use a class instead of an ID if you want to affect multiple elements with a no-hover classification. In which case you would do this instead for your first rule:
li, li:hover div.no-hover {
Either way, since selecting a descendant with its ancestor is more specific than selecting just the ancestor, assuming the same combinators on the ancestor it'll override the second rule even though that one comes later.
Update:
If you only want to have the hover effect not applying to Bye, then you can just create an extra hover rule for that and set the color explicitly (as other answers showed).
If the hover effect should not apply to the whole li element, then I think there is no way to do it. You needed some kind of parent selector, which does not exist in CSS.
Yes and it is fairly easy to try: http://jsfiddle.net/5vaUW/
(probably only works if your browser supports CSS3)
You might want to read more about CSS3 selectors, where you can find this:
A selector is a chain of one or more sequences of simple selectors separated by combinators. One pseudo-element may be appended to the last sequence of simple selectors in a selector.
A sequence of simple selectors is a chain of simple selectors that are not separated by a combinator. It always begins with a type selector or a universal selector. No other type selector or universal selector is allowed in the sequence.
A simple selector is either a type selector, universal selector, attribute selector, class selector, ID selector, or pseudo-class.
In css2, would be:
li:hover{
color:#CCC;
}
li:hover div{
color: #000;
}
For CSS3, I agree with Felix Kling.
Related
This is driving me nuts:
HTML:
<div><h1>Hello World!</h1></div>
CSS:
*:not(div) h1 { color: #900; }
Doesn't this read, "Select all h1 elements that have an ancestor that is not a div element...?" Thus, "Hello World!" should not be coloured red, yet it still is.
For the above markup, adding the child combinator works:
*:not(div) > h1 { color: #900; }
But doesn't affect the h1 element if it is not a child of a div element. For example:
<div><article><h1>Hello World!</h1></article></div>
Which is why I'd like to indicate the h1 element as a descendant, not a child, of the div element. Anyone?
Doesn't this read, "Select all h1 elements that have an ancestor that is not a div element...?"
It does. But in a typical HTML document, every h1 has at least two ancestors that are not div elements — and those ancestors are none other than body and html.
This is the problem with trying to filter ancestors using :not(): it just doesn't work reliably, especially when the :not() is not being qualified by some other selector such as a type selector or a class selector, e.g. .foo:not(div). You'll have a much easier time simply applying styles to all h1 elements and overriding them with div h1.
In Selectors 4, :not() has been enhanced to accept full complex selectors containing combinators, including the descendant combinator. Whether this will be implemented in the fast profile (and thus CSS) remains to be tested and confirmed, but once it is implemented, then you will be able to use it to exclude elements with certain ancestors. Due to how selectors work, the negation has to be done on the element itself and not the ancestor in order to work reliably, and therefore the syntax will look a little different:
h1:not(div h1) { color: #900; }
Anyone who's familiar with jQuery will quickly point out that this selector works in jQuery today. This is one of a number of disparities between Selector 3's :not() and jQuery's :not(), which Selectors 4 seeks to rectify.
The <html> element is not a <div>. The <body> element is not a <div>.
So the condition "has an ancestor that is not a <div>" will be true for all elements.
Unless you can use the > (child) selector, I don't think you can do what you're trying to do - it doesn't really make sense. In your second example, <article> is not a div, so that matches *:not(div) too.
Here is the official documentation for the CSS3 :not() pseudo-class:
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/#negation
and the proposed CSS Selectors Level 4 enhancement:
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors4/#negation
I've been searching the implementation and browser support for :not(), but the only examples I found were with a single element or with a direct child of an element, e.g.:
div *:not(p) { color: red; }
The example above works when <p> is a direct child of <div>, but it does not work when <p> is a more distant descendant of <div>.
div :not(p) {
color: red;
}
<div>
<ul>
<li>This is red</li>
</ul>
<p>This is NOT</p>
<blockquote><p>This is red but is not supposed to be!</p></blockquote>
</div>
If the answer is in the official documentation above, then I didn't find/understand it. As I said, I have searched this site and the web but couldn't find any discussion about the support or lack thereof of :not() as grand-children of another element.
Is this supposed to work like I think it should?
Is this supposed to work like I think it should?
No, the behavior you're seeing is correct.
In your last example, although the <blockquote> contains a <p>, it's the <blockquote> itself that's matching *:not(p), as well as the condition that it must be a descendant of the <div>, which it is. The style is applied only to the <blockquote>, but it is then inherited by the <p> inside it.
The <p> element itself still counts against the negation, so the <p> itself is still being excluded from your selector. It's just inheriting the text color from its parent, the <blockquote> element.
Even if none of its relatively close ancestors matched the selector, you have elements like html and body to worry about as well — although you could probably just tack on a body selector in the very beginning:
body div...
This is why I often strongly advise against using the :not() selector for filtering descendants, especially when not qualified with a type selector (like div in your example). It doesn't work the way most people expect it to, and the use of inherited properties like color only serves to compound the problem, on top of making it even more confusing for authors. See my answers to these other questions for more examples:
Why doesn't this CSS :not() declaration filter down?
CSS negation pseudo-class :not() for parent/ancestor elements
The solution to the problem described is to simply apply a different color to <p> elements. You won't be able to simply exclude them with a selector because of inheritance:
/* Apply to div and let all its descendants inherit */
div {
color: red;
}
/* Remove it from div p */
div p {
color: black;
}
On Selectors Level 4: yes, :not() has indeed been enhanced to accept full complex selectors that contain combinators. Essentially, this means (once browsers begin implementing it) you will be able to write the following selector and have it do exactly what you want:
p:not(div p) {
color: red;
}
In case anyone is interested, this works in jQuery today.
The color is assigned to the blockquote, and is then inherited by the p.
:not(p) just makes it so that the styles are not directly applied. They are still inherited though.
Is it possible to define css class behaves dependent to an other css class?
For example; when
a:hover
Then I want to set
p {background:#fff;}
Is this possible with pure css?
Edit: Assume that no nested relation exist.
If you mean you want all p to have that style when a:hover regardless of where they are in the DOM, then no, you can't do that. You'll need to use a script to apply the style (or some class containing that style) to the p elements when a receives a hover.
if you have a structure like this:
<a><p>...</p></a>
then this:
a:hover p {background: #fff;}
will work. However, block elements should not be placed inside inline elements (in this case, no <p> inside <a>
if your markup is valid, and looks like this:
<p><a>...</a></p>
then you could have
p:hover {background: #fff;}
but a descendant can't affect the parent css (unless you use javascript) while the opposite is true (parent css affects descendants)
I do not see why you would be limited to these restrictions with a littl creativity. if you use fixed positioning the descendant can overlap its parent. and still respond like a descendant.
If the <p> tag immediately follows the <a> tag then you could use the adjacent sibling selector e.g.
a:hover+p{
background:#fff;
}
This is supported in IE8+
There are already many questions related to this. But I'm still not clear. Also not sure if the title of the question is correct. Here's my problem:
What the below CSS code means?
#nav li { /*some cssA*/ }
#nav li.over { /*some cssB*/ }
#nav li a { /*some cssC*/ }
#nav li a:hover { /*some cssD*/ }
#nav li ul a span { /*some cssE*/ }
As per my understanding, please correct me if I am wrong:
Line 1: every li element within any element with id="nav" will have styling cssA
Line 2: When I put my cursor over every li element within any element with id="nav" will have styling cssB
Line 3: every a element within every li element within any element with id="nav" will have styling cssC
Line 4: When I hover every a element within every li element within any element with id="nav" will have styling cssD
Line 5: Every span element within every a element within every ul element within every li element within any element with id="nav" will have styling cssE. Also anyother ul or a element will not have this style untill unless the parent element has id="nav"
You are correct on all except .over, The "." represents a class. and "#" represents ID. But yeah, you've got the concept down.
Also, if you want to "Override" as the title says, you'll add
!important
to the end of any rules you want to take precedence over the others.
you can override the css by giving !important or you can give inline style.
priority of inline css is high then external css
All of the existing answers are correct, but there is a bit more to it than has been given already.
As has already been said, "li.over" is a combined selector - it will selector li elements that also have a class of "over". If you wanted to use different CSS properties or property values whilst the mouse is over (hovering over) the element then you use the pseudo class selector "li:hover". These are called pseudo class as you aren't selecting something that is part of the document, but based on the state of an element. There are also pseudo elements which again aren't in the document directly, but logical extensions of the document structure - for example first-child, first-of-type, fifth-of-type, odd items etc.
"#nav li ul a span" is a descendant selector, as you say it will select elements that are children (at any level) of each parent, so "#nav li" selects "li" elements contained within an item with ID "nav" - even several levels down.
If you want to select items that are direct children of the parent then you can use the ">" symbol. I.e. "#nav > li" will select li elements that are directly below any item with an ID of "nav", but not any li elements that are children of that element, or indeed elements below that.
Incidentally "#nav" is exactly equivalent to "*#nav" as it selects any element with the ID, you could also write "ul#nav" if you only wanted to select ul elements with the ID. This could in turn be combined with a class "ul#nav.bar" or even multiple classes "ul#nav.bar.touch".
Removing the space between the selectors like this combines them, so in the last case instead of looking for an item with class "touch" inside an item with class "bar" inside an item with ID "nav" inside a "ul" element, you are selecting a "ul" element with an ID of "nav" and both the classes "bar" and touch". An element like this-
<ul class="bar touch" id="nav">...</ul>
It is also possible to use attribute selectors, so if you wanted to select links which will open in a new window you could use "a[target=_blank]" - which selects based both on the presence of the attribute and the value - or if you wanted to select links with any href value you could use "a[href]". This simply selects all elements with this attribute.
On top of that you can even select items which are adjacent (next to) another element, if you wanted to select all paragraphs directly following an image then you would use "img + p" in your selector, or "p + img" if you wanted to select images directly following a paragraph. As always the last item in the selector is the one the styles are applied to.
It is generally considered good practice not to be overly specific with CSS selectors, as it makes your code much less re-usable. Unless you need to write "div.widget" just write ".widget" as the otherwise you'd not be able to create a "widget" using other elements, and it makes it much harder to override these properties later on in those cases you might need to.
To wrap up selectors, there's a good introduction to CSS selectors on MDN and Code School (paid course provider) also have a excellent online foundation course on CSS available for a very reasonable price which will go through selectors in some detail.
With regard to overriding classes, there are two further concepts you should understand - cascade order and specificity.
Given a HTML snippet of-
<div class="widget">
<p>
Some text you want to style
</p>
</div>
And the following CSS-
#widget p { color: yellow; }
p { color: blue; }
The color of the text would be yellow and not blue because the specificity of the first selector is greater (more specific) than the second. To understand this I suggest you have a play with a Specificity calculator and have a read of the Smashing Magazine tutorial on the subject.
In short though, inline styles trump all, and the more specific a selector the more likely it is to be applied in place of other selectors that would otherwise apply different property values. The value in the selector with the highest specificity score "wins", but other property values from selectors with lower specificity that do not clash will also still be applied to the element.
For example, altering our earlier CSS-
#widget p { color: yellow; }
p {
color: blue;
font-weight: bold;
}
The text will still be yellow, but will also be bold as there is no font-weight property given in the selector with higher specificity.
The last concept you should understand is what happens when two or more rules have identical specificity.
#widget p { color: yellow; }
#widget p {
color: blue;
font-weight: bold;
}
In this case our text is now blue as the second rule appears later in the stylesheet and thus overrides the first. If you have multiple stylesheets then the rules from the last stylesheet to appear in the document head will override rules with identical specificity.
In almost all cases you should use a more specific or the order of the selectors within the stylesheet in order to apply the right styles to the right element, and absolutely should not be routinely using the !important flag to achieve this unless absolutely necessary. See http://james.padolsey.com/usability/dont-use-important/ for a fuller explanation than I give here, but it rapidly becomes unmaintainable (what do you do when everything is "important") and it is also not accessible for users who may wish to override your styles in their user agent stylesheet (local to their browser) in order to help them read or use the page (increasing font size, contrast with background colour etc.)
Say you, or I, have coded an HTML element...
<a id='hydrogen' href='#'>H</a>
...and some :hover CSS...
#hydrogen:hover {
background:red;
}
...and now we want to put a fancy hand cursor when hovering. There's two options for this:
apply to stateless element:
#hydrogen {
cursor:pointer;
}
or, apply to :hover state.
#hydrogen:hover {
color:red;
cursor:pointer;
}
My question: is there any reason(s) why one way is decisively better than the other?
...or is it tomato, tomato?
Compatibility: IE6 and below only recognize the :hover pseudo class on a elements.
They are both the same, provided you always want the pointer there, reguardless of hovering.
The :hover pseudo class will inherit cursor: pointer from its non hovered state.
I would prefer to put it on the normal selector, rather than :hover.
Both ways are equally good. However i would put it on the id itself as :hover does not work on ie6 or below if element is not an anchor. If you do not care about older versions of IE. Then both ways are correct.