Topic: This stupid CSS sheet is redundant, right? (Page 1 of 1)

Okay, here's teh thing. I'm redoing this site, and from what I can remember, this CSS sheet is completely and utterly redundant. It *is* for being used with a content management system, so I understand trying to be thorough, but does the a.link a.visited a.hover or whatever have to be defined as the same damn thing for every element? I'll upload the sheet here, or at least some of it, and tell me what you think if you wouldn't mind...

thanks as always.

-grats

/* default link styles */

a, a.link { color: #003;
text-decoration: none;
}
a.visited { color: #336;
text-decoration: none;
}
a.hover { color: #fc3;
text-decoration: underline;
}


/* body styles */
BODY { color: #000;
font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans;
text-decoration: none;
}

.TWbody { font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans;
color: #000;
background-color: #fff;
margin-top: 10px; margin-left: 4px; margin-right: 4px; margin-bottom: 4px;
}
.TWpopbody { font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans;
color: #000;
background-color: #fff;
margin-top: 4px; margin-left: 4px; margin-bottom: 4px; margin-right:0px;
}

/* text styles */
.text { font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans;
font-size: 9pt;
color: #000;
text-decoration: none;
}
.text a:hover, a.text:hover { font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans;
font-size: 9pt;
color: #fc3;
text-decoration: underline;
}

.textfff { font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans;
font-size: 9pt;
color: #fff;
font-weight: normal;
text-decoration: none;
}
.textfc3, .textfc3 a, .textfc3 a.link { font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans;
font-size: 9pt;
color: #fc3;
font-weight: normal;
text-decoration: none;
}
.section { font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans;
color: #600;
font-weight: bold;
font-size: 11pt;
}
.section a, .section a.link, .section a.vlink { font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans;
color: #fc0;
font-weight: bold;
font-size: 11pt;
text-decoration: underline;
}

.section a:hover { font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans;
color: #fc3;
font-weight: bold;
font-size: 11pt;
text-decoration: underline;
}

.sectionfff { font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans;
color: #fff;
font-weight: bold;
font-size: 11pt;
}
.sectionfff a, .sectionfff a.link, .sectionfff a.vlink { font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans;
color: #fff;
font-weight: bold;
font-size: 11pt;
text-decoration: underline;
}

.sectionfff a:hover { font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans;
color: #000;
font-weight: bold;
font-size: 11pt;
text-decoration: underline;
}
.textLC { font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans;
font-size: 9pt;
color: #000;
font-weight: bold;
text-decoration: none;
font-variant: small-caps;
}
.textLC a:hover, a.textLC:hover { font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, sans;
font-size: 9pt;
color: #fc0;
font-weight: bold;
text-decoration: none;
font-variant: small-caps;
}

grats42: I'm not sure what you mean - there is redundancy in that style sheet (like the font-family) and it could be trimmed down but I think I've missed the point.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

what i was saying is do you need to repeatedly redefine? Like this, say I define the <a> tag like this:

a, a.link {
color: blue;
text-decoration: none;
}
a.visited {
color: purple;
text-decoration: none;
}
a.hover {
color: #0033ff;
text-decoration: underline;
}

****Then, I have a section header, that *may* sometimes contain a link in it:

.sectionhead {
font-family: Verdana;
font-size: 13pt;
}

*****now, unless I want to make sure that this always stays the same appearance and color and text-decoration, do i need to define .sectionhead a, .sectionhead a:link, .sectionhead a:hover etc??? I mean, wouldn't *this* be useless:

.sectionhead a:link {
color: blue;
text-decoration: none;
}

since it's the same exact thing as the definition in a.link in the first place?????

that's all

I believe you're right. That style sheet looks horribly redundant. This tends to be how beginners code with CSS.