On Sunday 2006-08-20 16:25 +1000, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > L. David Baron wrote: > 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. I suspect the rationale was something like "make it simple for the first version and see what else is needed later", but I agree that the extra "simplicity" doesn't really provide anything useful. It also forces a behavior for default namespaces defined by @namespace (they don't apply to the stuff inside :not()) that may or may not really be ideal. > e.g. :not(foo[bar]) could be written as :not(foo):not([bar]), but that's > not very intuitive for authors. Those aren't equivalent. The former is equivalent to :not(foo), :not([bar]). -David -- L. David Baron <URL: http://dbaron.org/ > Technical Lead, Layout & CSS, Mozilla CorporationReceived on Sunday, 20 August 2006 15:55:14 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:46 GMT