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.

~TJ
Received on Sunday, 19 September 2010 20:07:43 GMT

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