Re: Enhancing grouping of selectors

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