W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2009

Re: [css3-selectors] minor question about :not()

From: Andrey Mikhalev <amikhal@abisoft.spb.ru>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:27:19 +0300 (MSK)
To: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, W3C Emailing list for WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0903122222030.8136@master.abisoft.spb.ru>
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
>> Excerpt from section 6.6.7:
>>    The negation pseudo-class, :not(X), is a functional notation
>> taking a simple selector (excluding the negation pseudo-class itself
>> and pseudo-elements) as an argument.
> Andrey quoted exactly the same text in his original message.  I assume
> you mean to imply that the answer to his question *should be* obvious
> from that text, but since he quoted it before asking the question, it
> is not obvious to him, so your answer is not helpful.

forgive me if my quote was unclean.
i mean other parts of spec explicity claims invalidity, e.g.
in lang():
"C must not be empty. (If it is, the selector is invalid.)"

"A is B excluding C" says nothing about behaviour when A is C.

> zw
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2009 19:28:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:25 UTC