RE: [selectors4] :not and :matches specificity (was :not(a, b) vs. :not(a):not(b) from François REMY on 2013-04-17 (www-style@w3.org from April 2013)

From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:21:00 +0200
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DUB120-W4721A636F9C86EA53CFB84A5CE0@phx.gbl>

Oh, I didn't know that. That's somewhat weird. The max proposal looks to me the most sensical proposal that extends this basis, then.


> Yes, that's the *current* behavior. You have always been able to do
> that, ever since :not() was first introduced.
>
> ~TJ
>

Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 22:21:28 UTC