17686 2008-03-05 14:02:41 -0800 CSS3 Selector Test: negation pseudo-class should only accept simple selectors 2022-08-07 13:36:44 -0700 1 1 1 Unclassified WebKit CSS 528+ (Nightly build) Mac OS X 10.5 RESOLVED CONFIGURATION CHANGED http://disruptive-innovations.com/zoo/css3tests/selectorTest.html#target P2 Normal --- 1 eric webkit-unassigned ahmad.saleem792 bfulgham gavin.sharp ian jcraig phiw2 rniwa simon.fraser syoichi webkit zalan oldest_to_newest 72840 0 eric 2008-03-05 14:02:41 -0800 CSS3 Selector Test: negation pseudo-class should only accept simple selectors .blox16 { background-color: red; } .blox16:not(.blox15) { background-color: lime; } .blox16:not(.blox15[foo="blox14"]) { background-color: red; } <div class="blox16 unitTest" foo="blox15" title="negation pseudo-class accepts only simple selectors for argument"></div> 72852 1 webkit 2008-03-05 15:45:02 -0800 I wonder if this test is valid. simple selectors are "either a type selector, universal selector, attribute selector, class selector, ID selector, content selector, or pseudo-class. One pseudo-element may be appended to the last sequence of simple selectors." In this case we have attribute selector and class selector. It seems that the combination of simple selectors are not simple selector any more but you should notice that an attribute selector is always combination of attribute selector and other simple selector ;) For me the test case is invalid. Links to CSS Selectors spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/#negation http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/#simple-selectors-dfn http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/#attribute-selectors 72853 2 hyatt 2008-03-05 15:50:24 -0800 Yes, I posted on the author's blog even. I don't think we should fix this. 75501 3 webkit 2008-03-27 12:43:58 -0700 Some more words on this subject. Regarding attribute selectors, some people can claim: "Wait a second, "[class="test"]" is really simple selector and notation :not([class="test"] works as expected in Firefox and Opera and of cause in Webkit"? So is a [class="test"] really simple selector? No! Take a look on this fragment in specification: "The universal selector, written "asterisk" (*), represents the qualified name of any element type.[...] If the universal selector is not the only component of a sequence of simple selectors, the * may be omitted. Examples: *[hreflang|=en] and [hreflang|=en] are equivalent" [http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/#universal-selector] So this case "[class="test"]" is a simplified version of "*[class="test"]" and it is a sequence of simple selectors. Both cases a logically equal. So in my opinion, it's absolutely incorrect that this case :not(*[class="test"]) - which is logically equivalent to :not([class="test"]) - does not work in Firefox and Opera, . Take a look at an attached test case. Ian, you are an editor of CSS3 Selectors specification. what you think about this issue? 75502 4 20134 webkit 2008-03-27 12:44:45 -0700 Created attachment 20134 test case 75737 5 hyatt 2008-03-28 23:14:12 -0700 This may change. Not fixing yet. Brought it up with the CSS WG. 945754 6 jcraig 2013-10-31 16:58:20 -0700 This has changed for CSS4. Suggest closing. 1889549 7 ahmad.saleem792 2022-08-07 13:36:32 -0700 I am unable to reproduce this bug in Safari 15.6 on macOS 12.5 and the attached test case show both line with lime / green background and it matches with other browsers (Chrome Canary 106 and Firefox Nightly 105). I am marking this as "RESOLVED CONFIGURATION CHANGED". Thanks! 20134 2008-03-27 12:44:45 -0700 2008-03-27 12:44:45 -0700 test case test case text/html 256 webkit PCFET0NUWVBFIGh0bWw+CjxzdHlsZSB0eXBlPSJ0ZXh0L2NzcyI+CmgxLGgyIHtiYWNrZ3JvdW5k OnJlZDt9CmgxOm5vdChbY2xhc3M9InRlc3QiXSkge2JhY2tncm91bmQ6IGxpbWU7fQpoMjpub3Qo KltjbGFzcz0idGVzdCJdKSB7YmFja2dyb3VuZDogbGltZTt9Cjwvc3R5bGU+CjxoMSBjbGFzcz0i bm90dGVzdCI+dGhpcyBzaG91bGQgYmUgZ3JlZW48L2gxPgo8aDIgY2xhc3M9Im5vdHRlc3QiPnRo aXMgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGFsc28gZ3JlZW48L2gyPg==