- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 14:49:18 +0200
- To: "Paul Duffin" <pduffin@volantis.com>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 14:40:33 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > This has been discussed before on the list, as I recall, but one issue > was that something like: > > :not(a.foo) > > is, at least to some people, ambiguous. Does it mean > > :not(a):not(.foo) > > or does it mean > > :not(a), :not(.foo) > > or something else? > > It seems to me that the ":not(a), :not(.foo)" meaning is what's meant, > though.... Really? I would expect :not(a):not(.foo) personally. Seems more in line with how a.foo works (without :not()). -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Sunday, 19 September 2010 12:49:57 UTC