- From: Lea Verou via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2018 23:54:44 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> @LeaVerou I will note that most of your examples are chains of :not() which in Level 4 could be expressed within a single :not(), which won't explode the specificity in the same way. E.g. :not(.A):not(.B):not(.C) (specificity=0,3,0) can be written as :not(.A, .B, .C) (specificity=0,1,0). Just because it's easier to demonstrate the problem with `:not()` because typically removing something very specific from a large set still leaves you with a large set, so its specificity is almost always not what an author wants. Note that `div:not(#foo, #bar, #baz)` has the same problem, just less specificity. However, the problem `:is()` is trying to solve extends way beyond `:not()`. I could go through my stylesheets and compile a list of use cases that have specificity problems and don't include `:not()`. Thankfully, we have a resolution on this, so my time can be spent more productively. Can we please focus on the name? I think @SelenIT made an excellent point about `:is()` being an acronym for Ignore Specificity. -- GitHub Notification of comment by LeaVerou Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2143#issuecomment-355161132 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2018 23:54:46 UTC