- From: Andrey Mikhalev <amikhal@abisoft.spb.ru>
- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:27:19 +0300 (MSK)
- To: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
- cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, W3C Emailing list for WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Zack Weinberg wrote: > Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: >> >> Excerpt from section 6.6.7: >> >> The negation pseudo-class, :not(X), is a functional notation >> taking a simple selector (excluding the negation pseudo-class itself >> and pseudo-elements) as an argument. > > Andrey quoted exactly the same text in his original message. I assume > you mean to imply that the answer to his question *should be* obvious > from that text, but since he quoted it before asking the question, it > is not obvious to him, so your answer is not helpful. forgive me if my quote was unclean. i mean other parts of spec explicity claims invalidity, e.g. in lang(): "C must not be empty. (If it is, the selector is invalid.)" "A is B excluding C" says nothing about behaviour when A is C. > > zw > > >
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2009 19:28:00 UTC