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

Re: allowed arguments to :not()

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:25:57 +1000
Message-ID: <44E80075.3040407@lachy.id.au>
To: www-style@w3.org

L. David Baron wrote:
> 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.)

Do'h!  I was aware that the terminology had changed, but I still get 
confused about it.

Dave Hyatt wrote:
> I never understood this restriction either.

Neither do I, it seems to just make it more difficult to use.  Although, 
the restricted syntax doesn't really prevent anything, it just makes it 
a little more complicated.

e.g. :not(foo[bar]) could be written as :not(foo):not([bar]), but that's 
not very intuitive for authors.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Sunday, 20 August 2006 06:26:16 GMT

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