- From: Aryeh Gregor <AryehGregor@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:34:20 -0400
- 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 2:06 PM, 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). I agree with this. I think a lot of authors would get confused if you asked them whether :not(a.foo) is the same as :not(a), :not(.foo) or :not(a):not(.foo), but if they had an actual application, they'd be very likely to understand what it means in practice. :not(...) means "everything other than ..." -- it's about as intuitive as you can get.
Received on Monday, 20 September 2010 00:35:13 UTC