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