- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:25:57 +1000
- To: www-style@w3.org
L. David Baron wrote: > On Sunday 2006-08-20 12:39 +1000, Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> :not() can only contain a simple selector. In other words, it cannot >> contain any combinators. >> >> e.g. These are valid: >> :not(foo) >> :not(foo[bar]) >> :not(foo:hover) > > Actually, only the first is valid. (The definition of "simple selector" > changed between CSS2 and css3-selectors.) Do'h! I was aware that the terminology had changed, but I still get confused about it. Dave Hyatt wrote: > I never understood this restriction either. Neither do I, it seems to just make it more difficult to use. Although, the restricted syntax doesn't really prevent anything, it just makes it a little more complicated. e.g. :not(foo[bar]) could be written as :not(foo):not([bar]), but that's not very intuitive for authors. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Sunday, 20 August 2006 06:26:16 UTC