- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:20:04 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 09/30/2011 01:15 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote: > In http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors4/#overview, :not is described as: > |E:not(s)| an E element that does not match simple selector s Negation pseudo-class > <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors4/#negation> 3 > |E:not(s1, s2)| an E element that does not match either compound selector s1 or compound selector s2 Negation pseudo-class > <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors4/#negation> 4 > > Notably, the comma-separated version takes compound selectors and the single-argument version takes a simple selector. I > believe they should both take compound selectors. They do: read the normative prose. Would you prefer if I removed the level 3 row in the table? ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 30 September 2011 18:20:43 UTC