Hi Ricardo,

On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 20:09:26 +0200
Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:

> Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 12:58:42 +0200
> > Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
> >  
> >> (If anyone knows how to get ‘a.syntax-symbol’ CSS different from just
> >> ‘a’, I’m all ears!)  
> […]
> > a.syntax-symbol {
> >  color: red;
> > }
> > a:not(.syntax-symbol) {
> >  background-color: blue;
> > }  
> 
> The first definition would suffice if it came after any style definition
> for just “a”.

Yeah, but the behavior would be different.

I thought Ludo meant that he wanted the rules for just "a" not to apply to
"a.syntax-symbol".  With your version the rules for just "a" and the ones
for "a.syntax-symbol" would totally both apply to "a.syntax-symbol"s.

In my version, the "with class" text doesn't have a blue background.
In yours, it would have.

(I'd agree that it's often overkill)