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

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

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:32:47 -0700
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5D97C7EB4695104AB6345E56FE356B1941013F4F99@NA-EXMSG-C125.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

> I see what Andrey is getting at.

<snip>

> There IS a conflict with implementations.  Both Gecko and Opera accept
> "::first-letter" by itself as a valid selector.
> 

Thanks for clarifying! But stating that pseudo-elements are simple selectors, or that they can be used alone, is unlikely to be the intention of the 6.6.7 exclusion imo. It may simply be to explicitly note that one cannot use pseudo-elements in :not() at all i.e. the argument is strictly a simple selector (minus :not()), not a selector. It may be possible to improve the wording by shortening the exclusion clause and adding a note e.g. from :


#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. It represents an element that is not represented by the argument.

To:

#The negation pseudo-class, :not(X), is a functional notation taking a simple selector (excluding the negation pseudo-
#class itself) as an argument. It represents an element that is not represented by the argument.
#Note: Appending a pseudo-element to a simple selector results in a selector; selectors are not valid negation pseudo
#class arguments.
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 00:33:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:17 GMT