W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2006

Re: allowed arguments to :not() (was Re: Selector for parent/predecessor?)

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 21:28:53 -0700
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style@w3.org
Message-id: <002a01c6c411$251c5620$3401a8c0@TERRA> 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
To: <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 7:52 PM
Subject: allowed arguments to :not() (was Re: Selector for 
parent/predecessor?)

>On Sunday 2006-08-20 12:39 +1000, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> :not() can only contain a simple selector.  In other words, it cannot
>> contain any combinators.
>>
>> e.g.  These are valid:
>>   :not(foo)
>>   :not(foo[bar])
>>   :not(foo:hover)
>
>Actually, only the first is valid.  (The definition of "simple selector"
>changed between CSS2 and css3-selectors.)

David, is there any reasons of such :not simplifactaion?

I have implemented ':not' for any arbitrary selector and would
say that technically (means effectively) :not can contain any
selector.

Is there [ideo]logical limitations I am not aware of ?

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Sunday, 20 August 2006 04:29:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:46 GMT