- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:01:53 +0200
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Lachlan Hunt wrote: > e.g. :not(foo[bar]) could be written as :not(foo):not([bar]), but that's > not very intuitive for authors. No. :not(foo[bar]) is NOT equivalent to :not(foo):not([bar]) but is equivalent to :not(foo), :not([bar]) </Daniel>
Received on Sunday, 20 August 2006 16:02:20 UTC