Re: [css3-cascade] Proposed property: rule( sSelector );

Boris Zbarsky [bzbarsky@MIT.EDU] wrote:

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 didn't mean to suggest another not() selector; I'm aware of the addition of the
:not() pseudo in CSS3. I was referring to the common gripe by people learning CSS
today (who generally do not know CSS3 even exists, or any coming :not()) that
there is no way of applying to some things, skip some, and apply to some others.
:not() will resolve this well in some cases, and hopefully @rule() may fix it
in others. Their usage may overlap in some cases, but I think that's alright... .


>> 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?

Hopefully my second attempt at explaining what Cascade Order ought to be with
@rule will answer this, but if I'm still leaving things too vague please ask and
I'll try to hammer things down to better detail.

-Chris "SoopahMan" Moschini
http://hiveminds.info/
http://soopahman.com/

Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2003 12:03:51 UTC