Re: allowed arguments to :not()

On Sunday 2006-08-20 16:25 +1000, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> L. David Baron wrote:
> 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.

I suspect the rationale was something like "make it simple for the first
version and see what else is needed later", but I agree that the extra
"simplicity" doesn't really provide anything useful.

It also forces a behavior for default namespaces defined by @namespace
(they don't apply to the stuff inside :not()) that may or may not really
be ideal.

> e.g. :not(foo[bar]) could be written as :not(foo):not([bar]), but that's 
> not very intuitive for authors.

Those aren't equivalent.  The former is equivalent to
:not(foo), :not([bar]).


L. David Baron                                <URL: >
           Technical Lead, Layout & CSS, Mozilla Corporation

Received on Sunday, 20 August 2006 15:55:14 UTC