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

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):
>> 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.


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


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