On 09/30/2011 01:27 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: > > I just found the level 3 row confusing. As it is now, it makes it sound like you have to give multiple arguments in order to > use a compound selector. > > It'd be fine with me if we removed the row or just changed the text s/simple/compound/. I don't feel strongly either way. Selectors 3 :not() did not accept compound selectors, so the second suggestion won't work. How should we represent the fact that there was a :not() in Selectors 3 that had a more limited syntax? ~fantasaiReceived on Friday, 30 September 2011 23:00:27 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:04 UTC