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

[css2.1] [css3-selectors] Re: [CSSWG] Minutes, 25 March 2009 telcon

From: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:37:17 -0700
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20090325103717.0a75c1a5@mozilla.com>
Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:

>    <glazou> #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.
> 
>    <glazou> #Note: Appending a pseudo-element to a simple selector
>    results in a selector; selectors are not valid negation pseudo
>    #class arguments.
> 
>    Peter: The note doesn't clarify that a pseudo-element by itself is
>    not a simple selector
> 
>    fantasai proposese addding a Note that says "Since pseudo-elements
>    are not simple selectors, they are not a valid argument to :not()"
>
>    RESOLUTION: sylvain+fantasai's proposal accepted

This makes :not() much clearer, but as David pointed out in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Mar/0195.html
there is still a bug in both css 2.1 and css3-selectors, since
the grammar does not allow a pseudo-element by itself as a valid
selector, conflicting with implementations and possibly css1
(I don't see a concrete statement either way in
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1/#pseudo-classes-and-pseudo-elements
but am happy to go with David's assessment).

zw
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 17:38:09 GMT

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