- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 03:30:19 -0500
- To: Chris Moschini <cmoschini@myrealbox.com>, www-style@w3.org
Chris Moschini wrote: > Thanks. I think it can also help alleviate the common gripe CSS users have of > "there is no not() selector" I assume this not() selector would not do the same thing as the :not() pseudo-class in CSS3 Selectors does? > I think that the rule() function (or property) would obey the normal CSS rules > of cascade and specificity with the addition that selectors called through rule() > are less specific than properties at the same level, thus, given: So this "rule" thing is cumulative, then? In other words, any rule that matches an element and has this "rule" construct makes more rules match the element. Except at a different point in the cascade.... right? -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2003 04:34:32 UTC