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

Re: Enhancing grouping of selectors

From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:06:45 +1000
Message-ID: <4C9618F5.5060102@css-class.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style@w3.org
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 14:40:33 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>> 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....
> 
> Really? I would expect :not(a):not(.foo) personally. Seems more in line 
> with how a.foo works (without :not()).


I would expect likewise. You would want negation of style applied to 
<a> with the class of "foo". <a class="foo" />

I don't want a particular style to style any other <a> element or 
another element with the class of "foo". In affect I filter the style 
to any elements that match <a class="foo" />.


-- 
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
Received on Sunday, 19 September 2010 14:14:00 GMT

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