W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

Re: [css-flexbox] Should <br> get lumped into a "contiguous run of text" to form an anonymous flex item?

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:27:40 -0800
Message-ID: <52FACE0C.60408@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 01/23/2014 04:51 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
> On 01/23/2014 04:02 PM, Brad Kemper wrote:
>> Despite what is alleged in the link, all major browsers do
>> honor 'display: none' on a BR element
>
> Thanks -- I hadn't tried that use-case. I've updated my general "is br
> stylable" test page to include that now (and I can confirm that
> "display:none" does work in Gecko, Blink, and Presto, at least):
>   http://people.mozilla.org/~dholbert/tests/br-tests.html
>
>> I think that WHATWG should change its incorrect definition,
>> and should say that it is treated as though it was a glyph,
>> and not as an element, except for a limited set of properties
>> and values.
>
> I like the idea of treating it as a glyph, though I don't know how well
> that jives with having CSS styles apply (since I don't know of any other
> glyphs that can be directly styled). I guess it boils down to the
> details of what "treated as though it was a glyph" actually means. :)

So, at the F2F we discussed how to handle this problem,
and we're going to look into making <br> behave as text
by defining it as
   br { display-box: contents; content: '\A'; white-space: pre; }
as will be defined in the Display Module.

See http://www.w3.org/mid/52F0B05E.9070600@inkedblade.net

So, this will result in no edits to Flexbox, but should also
resolve the issue in favor of implementations. :)

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2014 01:28:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:19 UTC