Re: [selectors] Why the special cases in the definition of :not()?

On Aug 5, 2014 11:04 AM, "Benjamin Poulain" <bpoulain@apple.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am starting to look into Selectors Level 4 and I would like to
understand the rationale behind some design choices of :not():
> -Why is there limitations on the nesting of :not() with other functional
pseudo classes? The combinations ":matches(:not(...))", :not(:matches(...))
or :not(not()) seem useful for authors and easy to implement.
> -Why take a selector list as the argument? This seems to be equivalent to
:not(:matches(...)) while providing a more complicated syntax.
>

Can you explain the last bullet with examples? I'm thinking I must be
misunderstanding what you are saying