- From: Patrick Garies <w3c.www-style@patrick.garies.name>
- Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:25:08 -0500
- To: Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com>
- CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Matthew Millar <mattmill30@hotmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On 2010-09-18 12:23 PM, Paul Duffin 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 its > argument." > > Does "simple selector" in this case use the CSS 3 definition (which > it should given it is in the CSS 3 specification), or does it > mistakenly use the CSS 2.1 definition, which would allow things like > :not(a.special) but not :not(li> a). Given that the text you quoted [1] links to the CSS3 Selectors definition for the term "simple selector" [2], I think it's pretty obvious that the CSS3 Selectors definition is in use. Do you have a reason for believing otherwise? I don't see how the definition could be made more obvious short of copying it verbatim to the cited location. [1] <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors3/#negation> [2] <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors3/#simple-selectors-dfn>
Received on Saturday, 18 September 2010 21:25:41 UTC