Comments

1. 

2. 

   Thanks…dint know this was possible, giving it a try now.

3. 

   I think it goes without saying but having chained (:not)s just seems logically confusing. If 2 are checked for :not, then every class would be allowed. But there is clearly an additional layer of logic put into this pseudo class to make sure that a :not chain is self aware of the previous classes on the declaration.

   Oh well, good to know anyway!

4. 

   You should also mention that with Selectors 4 spec (link) we can pass a selectors list inside the :not() function. Like :not(h1, h2, h3)

5. 

   On first read, I found the and/or part a bit confusing, but this is basically using logical “and” to represent “or”: not(A or B) <=> not(A) and not(B). This also means that you can replace all “or” (represented in CSS by “,”) with a similar construct using “:not”:

   foo, bar { color: orange; }

   is (apart from specificity) equivalent to:

   :not(:not(foo):not(bar)) { color: orange; }

   Not sure if that is helpful in any context (where selector lists may not be allowed?).

6. 

   Kyle, it doesn’t really need to know. They are just chained by a logical and:

   If the tag is “body” and the class list does not include “home” and the class list does not include “away” and the class list does not include “page-50”, then …

   Of course using the not yet widely available level 4 selectors (body:not(.home, .away, .page-50) would be simpler:

   If the tag is “body” and the class list does not include any of “home”, “away” or “page-50”, then …