At the end you say that because the :where() and :is() psuedoclasses differ in their specificity, it allows us to create more readable code. Can you give an example? It seems, to me, that it would mostly cause confusion and/or unintuitive code. I could see some uses for CSS applied through classes toggled by JavaScript, as well as ways to reduce file sizes though. Definitely useful.
Thanks for the feedback! To clarify, the readability and maintainability aren't solely due to the specificity difference between :is() and :where(). Rather, it's about how these pseudo-class selectors can enhance code organization and clarity. They allow for more concise and intuitive styling, especially in complex scenarios. I was summarizing the video at 03:47, outlining their benefits, and when/how to use these selectors effectively. Both :is() and :where() contribute to writing cleaner, more maintainable code. Hope this helps.
You should be able to chain the :not() pseudo-selector with the :is() function, like ":not(:is(p, span))". However, it will be the same as using ":not(p, span)". It depends on what you want to achieve and don't forget that specificity also plays its part. You can also watch our short video on :has() pseudo-selector (ru-vid.comYoCm92KofDc) where we combined the uses of :not and :has to style navigation.
