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

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

1. not(a and b) is not(a) or not(b), and we already had groups of
    selectors to express the latter.

2. in a selector, all simple selectors express a unique condition
    on a given element/context. Making :not() accept a selector
    instead of a simple selector would have broken that rule.

</Daniel>