- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:11:27 -0700
- To: "Eric A. Meyer" <eric@meyerweb.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Eric A. Meyer wrote: > At 8:40 PM +0300 3/12/09, Andrey Mikhalev wrote: >> in 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." >> >> so, :not(:pseudo-element) - allowed by formal grammar - >> is invalid selector or "useless" selector, as foo:not(bar) ? > > Yes. The limited scope of ':not()' has long bugged me. It would be > really useful to be able to say something along the lines of > ':not(input, textarea, select, option) {margin: 0; padding: 0;}' -- thus > allowing us to style all elements that are not form controls. Yes, this > most often comes up in resets, which some people don't like, but there > are other use cases besides just resets. > I sort of get excluding pseudo-elements, but being limited to a > simple selector is annoying and I don't quite see the point. I expect us to release that limitation in Selectors Level 4, along with introducing a corresponding :matches() pseudo-class (same as :not(), except it doesn't negate). ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 14:24:42 UTC