Re: First-descendant-of-type selector?

Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> If :not will be relaxed to contain not only simple selectors
> then selector
> [...]
> Say selector like
> X Y:not(X > Y)
> naturally complements "X Y" and "X>Y" selectors.

I think that would be equivalent to this:

X :not(X)>Y

Both would select a Y that is a descendant (but not a child) of an X.


-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/