- From: L. David Baron via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 06:25:53 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I don't think https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/610#issuecomment-274911199 is an accurate reflection of the [WG discussion](https://log.csswg.org/irc.w3.org/css/2017-01-13/#e762671), key excerpts of which were: > dbaron: what's the use case of authors customizing this stuff? > TabAtkins: none > dbaron: do we want to do this then at substantial cost? > dbaron: if you want to do "it's this CSS thing and we exlpain it this way but you can optimize" then we have to write code for every <br> we ned to check to see if the stars align, 50 different checks, which may defeat the optimization in the first place > dbaron: we survived for 20 years with it being magic and we can survive another 20 > fantasai: we should spec behavior, unspec author's behavior potential changes > fantasai: or like the UA stylesheet has !important and can't be change > astearns: what's the value? > fantasai: then authors know what it means and have expectations > TabAtkins: we could say <br> and <wbr> are magic, but you can reproduce with this: ______________ > ... > astearns: RESOLVED: keep <br> and <wbr> magic, but add an explainer about how to mimic the results (Yes, @fantasai proposed an alternative in the [...] bit, but I don't think we accepted that in the resolution.) -- GitHub Notification of comment by dbaron Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/610#issuecomment-275029545 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2017 06:25:59 UTC