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

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

From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 23:03:12 -0700
Message-Id: <9BCE762D-824B-49D6-A1EB-F45E4C9177EF@apple.com>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style@w3.org
To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>

I never understood this restriction either.  When I implemented this  
in WebKit I actually had to add code to make :not more restrictive.

dave
(hyatt@apple.com)

On Aug 19, 2006, at 9:28 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:

>
>
> ----- 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 06:03:25 GMT

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