Re: [selectors4] :not accepts a compound selector

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?


Received on Friday, 30 September 2011 23:00:27 UTC