- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 08:40:33 -0400
- To: Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
On 9/19/10 2:34 AM, Paul Duffin wrote: > It just seems very restrictive and I was wondering why that was the case. This has been discussed before on the list, as I recall, but one issue was that something like: :not(a.foo) is, at least to some people, ambiguous. Does it mean :not(a):not(.foo) or does it mean :not(a), :not(.foo) or something else? It seems to me that the ":not(a), :not(.foo)" meaning is what's meant, though.... -Boris
Received on Sunday, 19 September 2010 12:41:07 UTC