W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2014

[selectors] Special cases in the definition of :not()

From: Benjamin Poulain <benjamin@webkit.org>
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 13:54:08 -0700
Message-ID: <53DEA170.80300@webkit.org>
To: www-style@w3.org
Hi,

I am slowly starting to look into Selectors Level 4 and I would like
some explanation on the simple selector :not().

I am curious why there are limitations on the nesting of :not() with
other functional pseudo classes. The combinations ":matches(:not(...))",
:not(:matches(...)) or :not(not()) seem useful for authors and easy to 
implement.

An other point of the definition that strikes me as odd is the usage of
a selector list as the argument. This seems to be equivalent to
:not(:matches(...)) while providing a more complicated syntax.

I would be interested to know the rationale behind those choices.


If the limitations are just carried over from Level 3, I think it would
be useful to drop all restrictions except the pseudo-element matching.

The pseudo class :not() could then just be a logical NOT operation over
a single compound selector.

Benjamin
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2014 15:02:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 5 August 2014 15:02:15 UTC