- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 09:47:22 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style@w3.org
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 14:40:33 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: >> 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()). This is probably why it was decided to punt on the issue at the time. ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Sunday, 19 September 2010 16:48:17 UTC