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

Re: Enhancing grouping of selectors

From: Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 00:34:02 -0600 (MDT)
To: Patrick Garies <w3c.www-style@patrick.garies.name>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Matthew Millar <mattmill30@hotmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <2031433417.19808.1284878042490.JavaMail.root@zimbra.volantis.com>

----- Original Message -----
> 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>

It just seems very restrictive and I was wondering why that was the case. If you following the email trail it came to light in a discussion about :any(), or rather the :-moz-any() described here [1] which I know is not a standard but is a similar 'logical' pseudo class. The two are inconsistent and I just wanted to understand why that might be.

[1] http://dbaron.org/log/20100424-any
Received on Sunday, 19 September 2010 06:34:38 UTC

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