- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 10:55:57 -0700
- To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: "W3C CSS List" <www-style@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com> Cc: "W3C CSS List" <www-style@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:35 PM Subject: Re: First-descendant-of-type selector? | | Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: | > If :not will be relaxed to contain not only simple selectors | > then selector | > [...] | > Say selector like | > X Y:not(X > Y) | > naturally complements "X Y" and "X>Y" selectors. | | I think that would be equivalent to this: | | X :not(X)>Y | | Both would select a Y that is a descendant (but not a child) of an X. Yes, and this is even better than my X Y:not(X > Y) from computational point of view. I missed that, thanks a lot. But case first-descendant-of-its-kind still cannot be implemented by single selector I guess. It appears that notation for negation of complex selectors shall be different. Sort of: X Y not Y Y Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatic.com | | | -- | Lachlan Hunt | http://lachy.id.au/ |
Received on Friday, 1 September 2006 17:56:17 UTC