Re: [csswg-drafts] [selectors4] Name the “functional pseudo-class like :matches() with 0 specificity” from fantasai via GitHub on 2018-01-01 (public-css-archive@w3.org from January 2018)

From: fantasai via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2018 13:58:27 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-354654652-1514815106-sysbot+gh@w3.org>

My concern with `:is()` is that it will be logically seen as the inverse of `:not()`, even though the inverse of `:not()` is `:matches()`: the specificity behavior of `:not()` and `:matches()` are matched, and `:not(:not(selector))` behaves as `:matches(selector)`, not as `:is(selector)`. But linguistically “is” and “not” seem to form a pair.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by fantasai
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2143#issuecomment-354654652 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 1 January 2018 13:58:30 UTC