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) ? Zack Weinberg wrote: > Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: >> So let me explain : according to section 4, a pseudo-element is not a >> simple selector. It's then impossible to negate a pseudo-element. > > Aha, but then there's still a wording problem: in > > a simple selector (excluding X and Y) > > the parenthetical reads like it *modifies* "a simple selector"; i.e. it > gives the impression that X and Y *are* simple selectors but are not > permitted in this context. I suggest just deleting the parenthetical > or replacing it with a cross-reference to the actual definition. I believe that these comments have been addressed by the latest Editor's Draft <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors3/#negation>: # 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(). Please let me know if this addresses your comment. ~fantasaiReceived on Monday, 19 October 2009 23:38:54 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:40 UTC