Lachlan Hunt wrote: > e.g. :not(foo[bar]) could be written as :not(foo):not([bar]), but that's > not very intuitive for authors. No. :not(foo[bar]) is NOT equivalent to :not(foo):not([bar]) but is equivalent to :not(foo), :not([bar]) </Daniel>Received on Sunday, 20 August 2006 16:02:20 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 April 2007 18:22:32 GMT