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

Re: [selectors] Why the special cases in the definition of :not()?

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 11:13:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CADC=+jccSciaWS-vk30kawaNDh7yDJSrJW29y+qjSLmVmQmfBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Poulain <bpoulain@apple.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Aug 5, 2014 11:04 AM, "Benjamin Poulain" <bpoulain@apple.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am starting to look into Selectors Level 4 and I would like to
understand the rationale behind some design choices of :not():
> -Why is there 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.
> -Why take a selector list as the argument? This seems to be equivalent to
:not(:matches(...)) while providing a more complicated syntax.
>

Can you explain the last bullet with examples? I'm thinking I must be
misunderstanding what you are saying
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2014 15:14:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 5 August 2014 15:14:24 UTC