W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2011

Re: [selectors4] :not accepts a compound selector

From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:27:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CANMdWTsX+FTAyGrDK9RWymkhAjT+vf6stZyXCP9VQzCX_Q1okg@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:20 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>wrote:

> On 09/30/2011 01:15 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote:
>
>> In http://dev.w3.org/csswg/**selectors4/#overview<http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors4/#overview>,
>> :not is described as:
>> |E:not(s)|      an E element that does not match simple selector s
>>  Negation pseudo-class
>> <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/**selectors4/#negation<http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors4/#negation>>
>>  3
>>
>> |E:not(s1, s2)| an E element that does not match either compound selector
>> s1 or compound selector s2    Negation pseudo-class
>> <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/**selectors4/#negation<http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors4/#negation>>
>>  4
>>
>>
>> Notably, the comma-separated version takes compound selectors and the
>> single-argument version takes a simple selector. I
>> believe they should both take compound selectors.
>>
>
> They do: read the normative prose. Would you prefer if I removed the level
> 3 row
> in the table?
>

I just found the level 3 row confusing. As it is now, it makes it sound like
you have to give multiple arguments in order to use a compound selector.

It'd be fine with me if we removed the row or just changed the text
s/simple/compound/. I don't feel strongly either way.
Received on Friday, 30 September 2011 20:28:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:44 GMT