On 9/5/02 9:33 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai@escape.com> wrote: > > Tantek Çelik wrote: >> >> On 9/5/02 6:02 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai@escape.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Tantek Çelik wrote: >>>> >>>> br { line-break-after:always } >>> >>> br:after {content: "\A"; white-space: pre} ? >> >> Right, this is exactly the nonsense hack that I am saying there is no need >> for. There was no need to introduce "\A" as a "formatting instruction", and > > .... Well, assuming \A gets replaced by a line feed character > according to the CSS escaping rules [1], I don't see anything > nonsensical about this example here. White-space is pre, so > line breaks should be honored. > > Or am I missing something here? "line feed character" is exactly the problem. It is a character based formatting instruction, which is antiquated, and its presence in a CSS specification (for that matter, a W3C specification) is very bad anachronism. Like I said, even the Unicode folks have been getting rid of all the characters which are simply formatting instructions. Another example, do you think a tab character \9 should mean move this content into the next table column? > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html#escaped-characters the _only_ reason that CSS2 included the "\A = line feed character = break the line" was so that br could be emulated with :after and content. As I said, this was a hack. TantekReceived on Friday, 6 September 2002 02:44:11 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:16 GMT