W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2003

Re: CSS3 Selectors CR - Possible eratum

From: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:10:49 -0500
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <3E650849.31712.2053219@localhost>

On 4 Mar 2003, at 3:24, Etan wrote:

> Ernest Cline wrote to <www-style@w3.org> on 4 March 2003 in " CSS3
> Selectors CR - Possible eratum"
> (<mid:3E641A0B.24627.2ADA2CE@localhost>):
> 
> > In the example in Section 9, shouldn't the specificity of the the last
> > example #s12:not(FOO) be 111 instead of 101 because of the :not?
> 
> The specificity is (1, 0, 1), not  (1, 1, 1). I quote "Calculating a
> selector's specificity"
> (<http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-css3-selectors-20011113#specificity>):
> 
>     A selector's specificity is calculated as follows:
>      * negative selectors are counted like their simple selectors
>      argument

Might I suggest that another example involving a different pseudo-class 
be added to the list of examples here. Currently :not is the only 
pseudo-class displayed in any of the examples. I'll admit I focused in 
on the pseudo-class aspect and not on the negation aspect, which is new 
to CSS 3.
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 20:11:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:20 GMT