not（）和第一个子选择器之间的特定性 [英] Specificity between not() and first-child selectors
问题描述
因此，我们有以下关于 not（）和 p：first-child {} selectors.Here是示例：
<！DOCTYPE html>
< html>
< head>
< style>
p：first-child {
color：red;
}
p：not（a）{
color：green;
}
< / style>
< / head>
< body>
< p>这是一个段落。< / p>
< / body>
< / html>
为什么段落最后是红色的？可以有人解释为什么 p：first-child {} 比 not（）
有人可能解释为什么p：first-child { }因为：not（）对特异性本身没有任何影响 - 只有一个
所以你有元素选择器
p和伪类：first-child，它给出了0-0-1-1的特殊性 - 并且有元素选择器p和a，这导致0-0-0-2。So we have the following example about
not()andp:first-child{}selectors.Here is the example:<!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <style> p:first-child{ color: red; } p:not(a){ color: green; } </style> </head> <body> <p>This a paragraph.</p> </body> </html>Why the paragraph is red at the end? Can somebody explain (if possible ) why the
p:first-child{}has bigger specificity thannot()selector???解决方案Can somebody explain (if possible ) why the p:first-child{} has bigger specificity than not() selector?
Because :not() doesn’t have any influence on specificity itself – only what is inside it counts in regard to specificity.
So you have the element selector
pand the pseudo class:first-child, which gives a specificity of0-0-1-1– and you have the element selectorspanda, which result in0-0-0-2.这篇关于not（）和第一个子选择器之间的特定性的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
