- From: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:37:17 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote: > <glazou> #The negation pseudo-class, :not(X), is a functional > notation taking a simple selector (excluding the negation pseudo- > #class itself) as an argument. It represents an element > that is not represented by the argument. > > <glazou> #Note: Appending a pseudo-element to a simple selector > results in a selector; selectors are not valid negation pseudo > #class arguments. > > Peter: The note doesn't clarify that a pseudo-element by itself is > not a simple selector > > fantasai proposese addding a Note that says "Since pseudo-elements > are not simple selectors, they are not a valid argument to :not()" > > RESOLUTION: sylvain+fantasai's proposal accepted This makes :not() much clearer, but as David pointed out in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Mar/0195.html there is still a bug in both css 2.1 and css3-selectors, since the grammar does not allow a pseudo-element by itself as a valid selector, conflicting with implementations and possibly css1 (I don't see a concrete statement either way in http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1/#pseudo-classes-and-pseudo-elements but am happy to go with David's assessment). zw
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 17:38:09 UTC