W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2010

Re: Enhancing grouping of selectors

From: Patrick Garies <w3c.www-style@patrick.garies.name>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:25:08 -0500
Message-ID: <4C952E34.6000902@patrick.garies.name>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:49:47 UTC