- From: Andrea Rendine via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 20:30:58 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
AndySky21 has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts: == [css-display] Display values for <br> and <wbr> == [display-outside values](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-display/#typedef-display-outside) `<br>` and `<wbr>` elements were originally meant to be rendered [according to a `content` property](https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/rendering.html#phrasing-content-0). That was first changed for `<br>`, probably because [`content` is not optimized for performance](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2015Mar/0019.html). Nor was that property usable with `::after` for legacy reasons: it could break those pages using `br::after`, because authors' rule would override the line break instead of adding something to it. The pseudo-element could have been used for `<wbr>`, though. On September 2014, when `<br>` had been turned into `display-outside: newline` since at least two months, it was decided that [`<wbr>` could become something similar](https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26264): and thus `display-outside: break-opportunity` was born. Two years have passed and still there's no trace of either display value. Googling it out, I noticed that [it was discussed briefly on Feb 23, 2015](https://logs.csswg.org/irc.w3.org/css/2015-02-23/) (one year and a half ago), when performance considerations were the only obstacle to reverting both elements back to the `content` scenario (and as of now [content apparently applies to real elements only with image and URL values](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-content/#content-property) - which is not sure either). Now I'd like to ask you a couple of questions: 1. Was the `display-outside` solution deemed not viable, despite the fact that [browser vendors would have preferred such a solution](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2015Mar/0022.html)? What are the considerations against it? 2. In case it cannot be used, how likely is it that `content: <string>` applies to at least a subset of HTML elements and how bad would the performance impact be? 3. Will either of the scenarios above be compatible with HTML spec concept of [styling `<br>`](https://w3c.github.io/html/textlevel-semantics.html#the-br-element) (and possibly `<wbr>`)? Related issue: https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/586 Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/610 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 15 October 2016 20:31:05 UTC