- From: dolphinling <lists@dolphinling.net>
- Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 12:19:25 -0400
- To: W3C CSS List <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>
> 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.
That's very close, but unfortunately it doesn't work.
Take this case:
<ul id="a">
<foo>
<li>text</li>
<li>
<ul id="b">
<bar>
<li>text<li>
</bar>
<li>text</li>
</ul>
</li>
</foo>
</ul>
In this case,
ul#a :not(ul#a)>li
selects the <li> inside <bar>, even though it's not an item of list a. (This is
the same problem with Bjoern's nearly-identical solution above.)
--
dolphinling
<http://dolphinling.net/>
Received on Saturday, 2 September 2006 16:19:59 UTC