- From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:06:45 +1000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style@w3.org
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > 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()). I would expect likewise. You would want negation of style applied to <a> with the class of "foo". <a class="foo" /> I don't want a particular style to style any other <a> element or another element with the class of "foo". In affect I filter the style to any elements that match <a class="foo" />. -- Alan http://css-class.com/ Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
Received on Sunday, 19 September 2010 14:14:00 UTC