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

Re: First-descendant-of-type selector?

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 10:55:57 -0700
Message-ID: <001c01c6cdef$e0fb4800$db02000a@internal.toppro.net>
To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: "W3C CSS List" <www-style@w3.org>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: "W3C CSS List" <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:35 PM
Subject: 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.

Yes, and this is even better than my 
X Y:not(X > Y) 
from computational point of view. I missed that, thanks a lot.

But case first-descendant-of-its-kind
still cannot be implemented by single selector I guess.

It appears that notation for negation of complex selectors 
shall be different. Sort of: 

X Y not Y Y

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatic.com


| 
| 
| -- 
| Lachlan Hunt
| http://lachy.id.au/
|
Received on Friday, 1 September 2006 17:56:17 GMT

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