CSS :not selector behavior [duplicate] - css

This question already has answers here:
Is the CSS :not() selector supposed to work with distant descendants?
(2 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
Using CSS, I'm trying to target all ul elements inside the #include element, except for the ones inside the #exclude element. Here's the markup:
<div id="include">
<ul><li>Include List</li></ul>
<div id="exclude">
<ul><li>Exclude List</li></ul>
</div>
</div>
I thought I could do this using the :not CSS selector like this:
#include :not(#exclude) ul {
color: blue !important;
}
The result I'm seeing is that neither ul gets the blue color. Clearly I am misunderstanding how this :not selector works. Is what I'm trying to do possible? Here's a fiddle:
https://jsfiddle.net/flyingL123/gmpLgx4y/

You need to use the > operator. This gets the immediate children of the element preceding. This will then get the ul immediately descending from #include. Updated:
JSFiddle
Updated code:
#include > ul {
color: blue !important;
}
You would not be able to to implicitly set styles by inheritance. They don't exclude ancestors because they don't trickle down. You will need to add new rules for other elements like so:
#include ul {
color: blue;
}
#exclude ul {
color: black;
}
Fiddle: Here

Related

how to overwrite style on selector [] not using !important? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
How are the points in CSS specificity calculated
(7 answers)
Closed 5 months ago.
I'm using UI Library(Vuetify) and this is the code it has:
.sample[data-2] {
color:red;
}
and I want to overwrite all the elements having .sample classes like this:
.sample {
color:blue;
}
If i use '!important' then it surely works,
but I want better solution to overwrite .sample[blabla] class.
I've tried .sample[*], .sample[] ... it didn't work
You can increase the specificity of your CSS by including :not pseudo class with a # id name.
The id name needs to be one not used elsewhere.
div {
margin: 10px;
}
.sample[data-2] {
color: red;
}
.sample:not(#nonExistentId) {
color: blue;
}
<h2>All these lines should be blue</h2>
<div class="sample">a div with class sample</div>
<div class="sample" data-2>a div with class sample and attribute data-2</div>
<div class="sample" anyoldattribute>a div with class sample and any old atrribute</div>
See MDN for a fuller explanation.
In particular if you need to support older browser versions you could use combinations of :is, :matches and so on.

class selector combining starts with and not ends with [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Is there a CSS selector by class prefix?
(4 answers)
CSS attribute selector for class name
(1 answer)
attribute selector for class starts with and ends with
(1 answer)
CSS attribute selector class starts with but not equals to
(2 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
I set dynamically classes on elements with class names "displayIfYes_%%" where %% comes from a database and can have a lot of values.
I am trying to set a simpler CSS selector for the classes I don't want to display, but I can't find how to do it.
I have a working solution to display elements only when value is "yes" using this CSS:
.displayIfYes_yes {visibility: inherit !important;}
.displayIfYes_na,
.displayIfYes_no,
.displayIfYes_scaled,
.displayIfYes_raw
/* ... and so on for any additionnal value */
{display: none !important;}
I want a selector to select any element which has class which begins with "displayIfYes" but does not end with "yes".
you can use selector [attribute|="value"] in this case your attribute can be class.
So:
[class|="displayIfYes"]{
/* */
}
will select class attribute which starts with that. The only complication is class attribute can have more than 1 class so this solution might not always work.
In that case I recommend using different classes for different scenarios from the database. You can create a class for each scenario such as;
.na,
.no,
.scaled,
.raw {
/* other styles */
}
.displayIfYes {
display: none !important;
}
The traditional way to solve this problem is to use a “base” class, then override with more specific classes. In your case, this would be:
.display-if-yes {
display: none;
/* Other styles which apply to all types */
}
.display-if-yes-yes {
display: unset;
visibility: inherit;
}
<div class="display-if-yes display-if-yes-yes">Yes</div>
<div class="display-if-yes display-if-yes-no">No</div>
<div class="display-if-yes display-if-yes-other">Other</div>
If you are unable to change your class structure for some reason, this should work for your specific requirements:
.displayIfYes_yes {
/* visibility: inherit; */
color: red;
}
*[class^='displayIfYes_']:not(.displayIfYes_yes),
*[class*=' displayIfYes_']:not(.displayIfYes_yes) {
/* display: none; */
color: green;
}
<div class="displayIfYes_yes">displayIfYes_yes</div>
<div class="displayIfYes_no">displayIfYes_no</div>
<div class="displayIfYes_other">displayIfYes_other</div>
I’ve commented out your specific styles just for the sake of the demo.
Here's a solution without using the :not() selector, instead only relying on attribute and class selectors and the underlying specificity.
Also, you can't override display: none; with visibility: inherit. Use display: initial instead.
[class^="displayIfYes_"] {display: none;}
.displayIfYes_yes {display: initial;}
<div class="displayIfYes_yes">div.displayIfYes_yes</div>
<div class="displayIfYes_na">div.displayIfYes_na</div>
<div class="displayIfYes_no">div.displayIfYes_no</div>
<div class="displayIfYes_scaled">div.displayIfYes_scaled</div>
<div class="displayIfYes_raw">div.displayIfYes_raw</div>

.class a:hover vs .class:hover a

Couldn't find an answer to something I've been wondering about.
Is there a difference between .class2 a:hover {} and .class2:hover a {}? Or a preference for one over the other?
I've been using .class2 a:hover {} to alter anchors on anchor hover (ie: anchor text color), but when I wanted to alter the div that held the anchor as well (ie: anchor color and div background-color both change on hover), I had to use .class2:hover a {} for it to work. In doing so, I got confused as to the difference because between the two as they are written so similarly.
Thanks!
EDIT
Edited the question to be more clear. Thanks for untwisting my brain :)
My understanding is this:
.class2 a:hover will target any hyperlink tags within .class2 elements when the a tags are hovered.
.class2:hover a will target any hyperlink a tags within .class2 elements when .class2 is hovered.
The distinction is which element you hover in order to change those styling rules.
Example:
.box{
background: red;
width: 50px;
height: 50px;
margin-bottom: 10px;
}
.case1 a:hover {
background: blue;
}
.case2:hover a {
background: green;
}
<html>
<body>
<div class="box case1">case 1</div>
<div class="box case2">case 2</div>
</body>
</html>
In this case, do you want to hover the .class2 element or the a?
.class2 a:hover {}
With the above, the style would only apply to a when the a element is hovered specifically, if the .class element has padding or other content, hovering over the other parts of the .class element will not trigger the hovered style for a
.class2:hover a {}
While the above will trigger the hover style for a if any part of the .class2 element is hovered (padding, content, etc..)
Working fiddle here.
Yes. There is a difference.
Behaviorally, there may not seem like a difference, but if you add a margin around your <a> tag, you might find that your first selector (.class2 a:hover {}) will stop working as indended.
.class:hover a selects the a link when any part of the class is hovered upon while .class a:hover selects the a link only when the a link is hovered upon
In class2:hover, you're activating the CSS class under all elements nested in the class. This includes if you wanted to add padding outside the border of your links.
In class2 a:hover, the CSS class is only activated when you're hovering specifically over the link. Otherwise, the class is ignored.
Hope this helps!

How to use :not selector with links [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
CSS negation pseudo-class :not() for parent/ancestor elements
(2 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
i have a hover effect for the links on my website. i want these to apply to every link EXCEPT ones in a particular div.
Example HTML
<div id="menu">
<div class="menu_item">
<a href="index.html" title="Home" target="_self">
<img src="_images/_menu/Home.png"
onmouseover="this.src='_images/_menu/homeHover.png'"
onmouseout="this.src='_images/_menu/Home.png'"
onclick="this.src='_images/_menu/homePressed.png'" alt=""/></a>
</div>
</div>
The CSS i have been trying to us
a:hover:not(.menu_item) {
background-color: #D6910E;
color: #FFE1A7;
} *no change*
a:hover:not(#menu) { *no change*
a:hover:not(#menu.menu_item) { *turns off hover on all links*
a:hover:not(#menu .menu_item) { *turns off hover on all links*
want these to apply to every link EXCEPT ones in a particular div
The standard approach to such problems in CSS is to give the general rule first, then the specific rule to override it. Using :not is a slippery slope and should be reserved for special cases. So:
/* State the general rule first */
a:hover {
background-color: #D6910E;
color: #FFE1A7;
}
/* Give the exception */
.menu_item a:hover {
background-color: transparent;
color: inherit;
}
If you do want to use :not, you have to understand that the predicate applies to the current element:
a:hover:not(#menu)
does not mean a tags being hovered which are not children of #menu; it means a tags being hovered which are not themselves #menu (which will always match). To do what you are trying to do with :not, you would want to try something like
:not(#menu) a:hover
However, this will also not work, because it means "a tags being hovered which have any ancestor which is not #menu", which will also almost always match.
Why you don't make it easier ?
Like
a:hover {
background-color:red;
color:red;
}
#menu .menu_item:hover{
/* Default color */
}
In your case , you can repair it by change the position of "hover"
a:not(.menu_item):hover {
background-color: #D6910E;
color: #FFE1A7;
} /*no change*/
a:not(#menu):hover { /*no change*/ }
a:not(#menu.menu_item) :hover { /*turns off hover on all links*/
a:not(#menu .menu_item):hover { /*turns off hover on all links*/
Hope it 'll help you

CSS selector: Style the first "a" inside a div

I am having trouble finding the correct CSS selector, the structure I have looks like this:
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
I would like to style the a element of the first div
I have tried with this selector but with no luck
div:first-child a{}
first-child should work absolutely well, you can try
div:nth-of-type(1) a { /* Or div:first-child a */
color: red;
}
The above selector will select all 1st div element and will apply color to all a which are inside 1st div
Demo
If you are willing to style 1st occurrence of a in every div tag than you need to use
div a:nth-of-type(1) { /* Or div a:first-child */
color: red;
}
Here every 1st a will be selected in every div tag
Last but not the least if you want to select 1st a only in 1st div than use the below selector
div:nth-of-type(1) a:nth-of-type(1) { /* Or div:first-child a:first-child */
color: red;
}
Note: If still the above selectors doesn't work, than the possibility
is either some rule is more specific than the rules you are declaring,
or !important is used somewhere, or (least chances) you are testing
on older browsers
Your own example is working too.
http://jsfiddle.net/7Pea3/
div:first-child a {
color: #f00;
}
The first div will be selected and all a recive the color #CCC. I don't understand why this isn't working.
div:first-child a {
color: #CCC;
}
Else test this solution, that selects the first div and styles the first a tag in the div:
div:first-child a:first-child(1) {
color: #CCC;
}
Else you have problems with the :first-child selector use the :nth-of-type({ number expression | odd | even }) selector.

Resources