- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 23:54:08 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
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.
Tantek
Received on Friday, 6 September 2002 02:44:11 UTC