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

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

From: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:36:04 -0800
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: W3C Emailing list for WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20091104153604.196234ba@mozilla.com>
fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> > 
> >>    # 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: Since pseudo-elements are not simple selectors, they
> >>    # are not a valid argument to :not().
> > 
> > I think the (excluding ...) parenthetical is still confusing, and
> > would suggest instead
> > 
> > # The negation pseudo-class, :not(X), takes a single simple selector
> > # as an argument.  It matches any element that its argument would
> > not # match.
> > #
> > # Negations may not be nested; :not(...:not(...)...) is invalid.
> > # Also, since pseudo-elements are not simple selectors, they may not
> > # be used inside :not() either.
> 
> I have made the following changes:
>    http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/csswg/selectors3/Overview.html.diff?r1=1.65&r2=1.66&f=h
> 
> Please let me know if this is an acceptable response to your comment.

That's good as far as it goes, but I'd still delete the parenthetical.
And is it truly necessary to use the "represents an element that is not
represented by" phrasing?  If we have to have that for consistency with
the rest of the document, fine, but I think "matches any element that
its argument would not match" is a much more natural way to describe
the semantics.

zw
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 23:36:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:22 GMT