- From: Ian Hickson <ianh@netscape.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 15:19:49 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
- To: Jonas Sicking <sicking@bigfoot.com>
- cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-style@w3.org
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote
>> I really don't like a 'not-' prefix as a generic modifier.
>> What about a suffix pseudo-class?
>>
>> p:contains("foo"):not
It's *not* a pseudo-class. A pseudo-class may or may not match. ':not'
just modifies a previous simple selector to mean something else.
This is just like the ':subject' "thing" -- reusing the pseudo-class
syntax for something else.
> I completly agree that the "not-" syntax is not perfect. However the :not
> pseudoclass looks even stranger to me. Think of a selector like
>
> a[href='http://www.w3.org']:not:contains('foobar'):not
> and
> a[href='http://www.w3.org']:not[class~='standard']:hover:not
>
> that gives really messy syntax.
No kidding.
> I think it will be hard to find a good common syntax for attributes,
> pseudoclasses and elements because they have different syntax in CSS.
> If they don't share a "match syntax" why should they share a "don't
> match" syntax.
Absolutely. Couldn't have said it better myself!
--
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL
Netscape, Standards Compliance QA /. `- ' ( `--'
+1 650 937 6593 `- , ) - > ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
Received on Monday, 9 October 2000 18:21:08 UTC