- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:53:24 +0100
- To: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Zack Weinberg wrote: > 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). That is a different issue and we decided to treat as such. </Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 17:54:12 UTC