- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 13:06:49 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 11:06 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > 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). :not(a):not(.foo) seems very clear, actually. Without any special magic interaction, it means "tag name is not 'a' and class is not 'foo'". Simple selectors always AND together by default. ~TJ
Received on Sunday, 19 September 2010 20:07:43 UTC