W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2010

Re: Enhancing grouping of selectors

From: Patrick Garies <w3c.www-style@patrick.garies.name>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 02:15:31 -0500
Message-ID: <4C95B893.4070905@patrick.garies.name>
To: Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com>
CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Matthew Millar <mattmill30@hotmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
  On 2010-09-19 1:34 AM, Paul Duffin wrote:
>  It just seems very restrictive and I was wondering why that was the
>  case. If you following the email trail it came to light in a
>  discussion about :any(), or rather the :-moz-any() described here [1]
>  which I know is not a standard but is a similar 'logical' pseudo
>  class. The two are inconsistent and I just wanted to understand why
>  that might be.

I still don't see how you came to the conclusion that the CSS2.1 
definition of "simple selector" might have accidentally been used as a 
reference in the CSS3 Selectors specification.

That said, I don't know why the |not| pseudo-class is restricted to use 
with CSS3 Selectors simple selectors. A quick search of the list archive 
[1] indicates that this topic has been discussed here before [2] [3] 
[4]. fantasai indicated that the restriction would be likely be removed 
in CSS4 Selectors, but didn't describe why the limitation was in place. [4]

[1] 
<http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?index-type=t&type-index=www-style&keywords=%3Anot>
[2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Mar/0127.html>
[3] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Mar/0132.html>
[4] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Mar/0203.html>
Received on Sunday, 19 September 2010 07:16:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:31 GMT