Re: [selectors4] :not and :matches specificity (was :not(a, b) vs. :not(a):not(b) from Tab Atkins Jr. on 2013-04-18 (www-style@w3.org from April 2013)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 01:21:43 -0700
To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCE_SAhDMPbADWDDXG7BBknJaVDVtQ2MZUFvszpCTVRhA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote:
> In other words, the "most specific" rule recursively descends into nested
> :not() and :matches() pseudos. Is that correct?

It kind of has to.

(Note that this diversion is moot, anyway - the spec explicitly
prevents :not() and :matches() from being nested in each other.  I
guess I don't see a technical problem with allowing such, though.)

~TJ

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 08:22:35 UTC