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

Re: Enhancing grouping of selectors

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 13:06:49 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinmp75DE4pZ7i5aWH7nRcMAwO+FUh0mLDJkf_=L@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 11:06 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> I think it's more likely that the confusion is over what
> :not(a):not(.foo) means than over what :not(a.foo) means, though.
> If that's the case, then that's an argument that we should allow
> :not(a.foo).

:not(a):not(.foo) seems very clear, actually.  Without any special
magic interaction, it means "tag name is not 'a' and class is not
'foo'".  Simple selectors always AND together by default.

Received on Sunday, 19 September 2010 20:07:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:38 UTC