- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:06:35 -0700
- To: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com> wrote: >> * One for all elements representing possible drop targets >> that could receive the item. >> * One for all elements representing drop targets that do >> not accept this type of item. > > This sounds like these two pseudo-classes would do exactly the opposite. So > why not use :not() for this case? Nope, the distinction is similar to :valid/:invalid - usually, most elements will match neither, because they're not drop targets at all, so they can't be a valid drop target *or* an invalid one. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 18:07:25 UTC