- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:06:52 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Sunday 2010-09-19 13:28 -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 9/19/10 8:49 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >>:not(a.foo) > ... > > >Really? I would expect :not(a):not(.foo) personally. Seems more in line > >with how a.foo works (without :not()). > > Thank you _very_ much for illustrating the confusion that can arise! > > "a.foo" means "tag name is 'a' AND class is 'foo'". > > So :not(a.foo) ought to be the negation of that statement. Applying > De Morgan's law, that would be "tag name is not 'a' OR class is not > 'foo'", which is the same as: > > :not(a), :not(.foo). I think it's more likely that the confusion is over what :not(a):not(.foo) means than over what :not(a.foo) means, though. If that's the case, then that's an argument that we should allow :not(a.foo). -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Sunday, 19 September 2010 18:07:37 UTC