- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 14:33:34 +0000
- To: public-css-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24239
Bug ID: 24239
Summary: More clarification for argument in :not() and
:matches()
Product: CSS
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: Selectors
Assignee: fantasai.bugs@inkedblade.net
Reporter: crimsteam@gmail.com
QA Contact: public-css-bugzilla@w3.org
Hello, in new module Selectors Level 4 we can use a selector list as an
argument in :not() and :matches() pseudo-classes. But it will be nice (better)
if one example will explain this case:
div:not(.heavy, #box) {color: red}
What exactly does it mean:
Case1
div:not(.heavy):not(#box) {color: red}
Case2
div:not(.heavy), div:not(#box) {color: red}
equivalent:
div:not(.heavy) {color: red}
div:not(#box) {color: red}
Case1 and Case2 is not the same. Case2 will style <p class="heavy"> (second
rule) and <p id="box"> (first rule), but Case1 no.
Maybe term's selector list in some way shown it, but one simple example can
replace many long descriptions and uncertainties.
The same situation is for :matches(). I check it for :-moz-any() pseudo and it
works like Case2. But dont know if :-moz-any() is or will be equivalent for
:matches(). At this moment there is no browser with implements the new module,
so we can't test anything.
On the other site, if not() and :matches() represent Case2, maybe consider
adding next selector which represents Case1, like notAll(), matchesAll(),
additional modyficator/identificator or sometching else. It can be short
version for unnecessary repeat :not(), like:
:not():not():not():not():not():not()
PS.
Last thing is unnecessary, I see in new level 4 we can sth like this:
:not([arg=val1][arg=val2][arg=val3][arg=val4][arg=val5][arg=val6])
and you considering multiple-value matching:
:not([arg=val1,val2,val3,val4,val5,val6]) << but again I wander what comma will
means, conjunction or alternative.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2014 14:33:37 UTC