- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 17:27:40 -0800
- 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