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

Re: Enhancing grouping of selectors

From: Aryeh Gregor <AryehGregor@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:34:20 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=g02-B=04Fzxfo5+1ObfwTVLgSnKT+4-TWVD18@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 2:06 PM, 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).

I agree with this.  I think a lot of authors would get confused if you
asked them whether :not(a.foo) is the same as :not(a), :not(.foo) or
:not(a):not(.foo), but if they had an actual application, they'd be
very likely to understand what it means in practice.  :not(...) means
"everything other than ..." -- it's about as intuitive as you can get.
Received on Monday, 20 September 2010 00:35:13 GMT

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