Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe you need any of the :not statements, and instead or (3n) and (5n) you can just use 15n for the 'fizzbuzz'.
The cascade of the CSS will take care of the cases the div is a 'fizzbuzz'.
Sorry I can't post the example, Dabblet is working strangely for me this morning.
I think your answer is a lot more readable, though. I have to squint at jontro's version for a while before determining that it'll actually product the string "fizzbuzz".
Correct, you don't need the :nots as long as the CSS is in that order, since the :after content would be overridden correctly. You would need them if you changed the order of the statements.
I started the experiment using background color instead of "fizz", border color instead of "buzz", and box-shadow instead of "fizzbuzz" which necessitated the need for :nots since the properties weren't overriding.
Usually IE8 users are stuck in IE8 unless they let the OS upgrade their browser, so most of the users that started with IE8 are still stuck in 2009. Chrome/FF users tend to have less issues with upgrades.
All horrible arguments. "Stuck?" Download a real browser.
IE8 viewers expect devs to slow progress or cater to them would be like horse and buggy drivers from days of yore lobbying to prevent cars from going faster than horses.
Stop complaining, get off your horse and get a (free) car. Encourage your clients to do likewise.
You know, that’s not such an outlandish claim. CSS is accumulating features that seem to me completely out of place in a styling language. Then again, HTML isn’t perfect, nor JavaScript, nor PHP or any language—but we still get stuff done with them, so who am I to complain?
The cascade of the CSS will take care of the cases the div is a 'fizzbuzz'.
Sorry I can't post the example, Dabblet is working strangely for me this morning.
CSS that should work: