CSS :not() with Multiple Classes | CSS-Tricks (2023)

1. Alec

   Permalink to comment# July 22, 2019

   Soon, the :not selector will also be able to accept a list of selectors to match against.

   • Adam Taylor

     Permalink to comment# July 25, 2019

     Since this will be the same behaviour as chaining them, we can probably expect build tools to automatically convert between them in the future.

     Thanks for the info!

2. Matthew

   (Video) The new CSS pseudo-classes explained - :is() :where() :has()

   Permalink to comment# July 23, 2019

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

3. Kyle

   Permalink to comment# July 23, 2019

   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. Mattia

   Permalink to comment# July 23, 2019

   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. Thomas Luzat

   Permalink to comment# July 23, 2019

   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. Thomas Luzat

   Permalink to comment# July 23, 2019

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

   (Video) CSS :not( ) pseudo-class Selector

   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 …

7. Roger Poole

   Permalink to comment# July 24, 2019

   Good grief, I hate to be the na sayer but Can I Use :not() sure kills any bright hopes for this. I fully expected IE11 to not support it (and I’ve got a bunch of those users) but even Edge, Chrome, and Firefox are not on board yet.

   This seems to be a Safari only selector…

   • Chris Coyier

     Permalink to comment# July 24, 2019

     To be clear, you’re ONLY talking about the fancy comma-separated :not(a, b, c) style.

     Regular :not(a):not(b):not(c) style is supported everywhere.

   • Rodrigo

     Permalink to comment# August 3, 2019

     The CSS3 selector :not() is widely supported (including IE9+).
     What is only supported by Saffari is the list argument, like :not(a, b, c).

   • Mike Dailey

     Permalink to comment# August 13, 2019

     You gave me a damn heart attack! That’s only for the selector list argument of :not(), which is the :not(.a, .b, .c) thing. Just straight up :not(.a) is fine, as is :not(.a):not(.b):not(.c)

   • Jarryd

     (Video) CSS : Multiple classes inside :not()

     Permalink to comment# September 26, 2019

     That’s only for a list of multiple selectors, the basic implementation of :not() works across most browsers.

   • rafi

     Permalink to comment# September 27, 2019

     Being able to chain selectors within :not() is not fully supported but :not() itself is https://caniuse.com/#feat=mdn-css_selectors_not

8. James Little

   Permalink to comment# July 24, 2019

   I think you might be looking at selector list argument of :not(), which only works in Safari, yeah. But :not itself is part of the CSS3 selectors listing, which seems to be green across the board.

   So you can use :not() wherever, but we might have to hold off on using it with a list of selectors for now, like so:

   .headline:not(h1, h2, h3) { ... }

   • Mattia Astorino

     Permalink to comment# July 30, 2019

     Selectors list inside the :not() selector is part of Selectors 4 Spec

9. Mike

   Permalink to comment# July 24, 2019

   :not() has been supported by all browsers for a long time. There is no reason not to use it.

10. Jim S

    Permalink to comment# July 30, 2019

    (Video) 10 CSS Pro Tips - Code this, NOT that!

    I could see how this could be powerful, but I’m a little hesitant to start using this. Doesn’t this have the same dangers as using !important because you’re overriding the cascade?

    On the front page of CSS-Tricks I see this done with some a tags successfully (the site looks dayung good.) But I’m not sure I want to override things like this where selectors (and properties) are being overridden with frequency:

    a:not(.button):not(.commentPreviewButton):not(.comment-reply-link):focus, a:not(.button):not(.commentPreviewButton):not(.comment-reply-link):hover {
background: -webkit-gradient(linear,left top,right top,from(#ff8a00),to(#da1b60));
background: linear-gradient(to right,#ff8a00,#da1b60);
-webkit-background-clip: text;
-webkit-text-fill-color: transparent;
-webkit-box-decoration-break: clone;
box-decoration-break: clone;
text-shadow: none;
}

    I guess I’d have to see the code, maybe it’s much simpler in their codebase?

    • Chris Coyier

      Permalink to comment# July 30, 2019

      I wasn’t even thinking of that particular code when writing this, but it makes a fairly good point. I don’t control the classes commentPreviewButton and comment-reply-link. They come from WordPress core or plugins. I could probably write filters to control them, but that’s technical debt at a level I’d rather not deal with. I’ll take my technical debt in a CSS selector, because of my personal skillset. That selector helps me to what I want to do, targeting most links, but avoiding a few specifically based on class name.

    • Jim S

      Permalink to comment# July 30, 2019

      Yeah, I think I should take back in part what I said about !important- because it’s not an uncontrolled override. At least :not has you specify. The way it’s used here makes sense especially in environments where you don’t have control over some of the environment like WordPress like you said. But this probably is the exception more than the rule.

11. J. Hogue

    Permalink to comment# July 30, 2019

    I encountered someone’s code that did not understand this concept in the wild —worse, in the Production code of a well-known CMS’s admin. The code was like this:

    #some-id *, #some-id *:not(div),#some-id *:not(svg *) { stuff }

    …which is just insane. The first rule is not needed if the second rule is present. And the third rule just makes you wonder what this world is coming to.

    Please please be careful with the power that CSS gives you. Make sure you understand the rules before you apply them.

12. Matthew Wilcox

    Permalink to comment# August 1, 2019

    AND is chained. OR is achieved through new selectors:

    html:not('.foo'),html:not('.bar') { color: red;}

    (Video) How you can simplify your CSS with :is()

This comment thread is closed. If you have important information to share, please contact us.