I have used :not() in several sites presuming as with other css3 selectors that cross-device / browser support would be good.
When looking on caniuse - http://caniuse.com/#search=%3Anot() the table suggests that only safari browsers support this selector
Whereas w3schools say differently - http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/sel_not.asp
Can anyone shine any light om this? Ive used the selector heavily over the past few years and want to make sure i should continue to do so!
Since you did a search, you were presented with 3 results that matched your query. The first result is the selector list argument of :not() which, I presume, is what you were looking at. Obviously, this isn't the css selector that you were looking for.
So yes, you can safely keep using :not(). Here's the correct canIuse link for css selectors.
The one that is safari only says
Selectors Level 4 allows the
:not()pseudo-class to accept a list of selectors, which the element must not match any of. Selectors Level 3 only allowed:not()to accept a single simple selector. Thus,:not(a):not(.b):not([c])can instead be written as:not(a, .b, [c])
Which means this form :not(a, .b, [c]) can be used oppose to this form :not(a):not(.b):not([c]) but only within safari
http://caniuse.com/#feat=css-sel3 tells us
Advanced element selection using selectors including:
[foo^="bar"],[foo$="bar"], [foo*="bar"],:root,:nth-child(),:nth-last-child(),nth-of-type,nth-last-of-type(),:last-child,:first-of-type, :last-of-type,:only-child,:only-of-type,:empty,:target,:enabled,:disabled,:checked,:not(),~(general sibling)
Which means we can use all of those selectors including :not() in any browser, well all major and updated browsers.
hope that clears it up.
