title: Is the CSS3 best practice of link pseudo classes order different to the CSS2?
body: <p>We are used to annotate link pseudo classes linke this:</p>
  
  <pre><code>a:link    { color: red }    /* unvisited links */
  a:visited { color: blue }   /* visited links   */
  a:hover   { color: yellow } /* user hovers     */
  a:active  { color: lime }   /* active links    */
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Source: <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/selector.html#dynamic-pseudo-classes" rel="nofollow">http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/selector.html#dynamic-pseudo-classes</a></p>
  
  <p><strong>I assume this order is still correct for CSS3?</strong></p>
  
  <p>Note: Some propose more precise selectors but that is a different topic:</p>
  
  <pre><code>:link:focus, :visited:focus { ... }
  :link { ... }
  :visited { ... }
  :link:hover, :visited:hover { ... }
  :link:active, :visited:active { ... }
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>Source: <a href="http://www.thestyleworks.de/tut-art/pc_dynamic_a_name.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.thestyleworks.de/tut-art/pc_dynamic_a_name.shtml</a></p>