- 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