Re: [css3-selectors] minor question about :not()

Zack Weinberg wrote:
> fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> 
>> Zack Weinberg wrote:
>>> fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>    # 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.
>>>>    #
>>>>    # Note: Since pseudo-elements are not simple selectors, they
>>>>    # are not a valid argument to :not().
>>> I think the (excluding ...) parenthetical is still confusing, and
>>> would suggest instead
>>>
>>> # The negation pseudo-class, :not(X), takes a single simple selector
>>> # as an argument.  It matches any element that its argument would
>>> not # match.
>>> #
>>> # Negations may not be nested; :not(...:not(...)...) is invalid.
>>> # Also, since pseudo-elements are not simple selectors, they may not
>>> # be used inside :not() either.
>> I have made the following changes:
>>    http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/csswg/selectors3/Overview.html.diff?r1=1.65&r2=1.66&f=h
>>
>> Please let me know if this is an acceptable response to your comment.
> 
> That's good as far as it goes, but I'd still delete the parenthetical.

I'd rather leave it there, just so that sentence is accurate as stated.

> And is it truly necessary to use the "represents an element that is not
> represented by" phrasing?  If we have to have that for consistency with
> the rest of the document, fine, but I think "matches any element that
> its argument would not match" is a much more natural way to describe
> the semantics.

I don't remember why we use that wording, but I remember that I'm not
supposed to change it. If it bothers you, convince either Hixie or
Tantek that it ought to be changed.

~fantasai

Received on Thursday, 5 November 2009 00:20:43 UTC