W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2014

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

From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 16:51:31 -0800
Message-ID: <52E1B913.8090500@mozilla.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
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. :)

~Daniel
Received on Friday, 24 January 2014 00:51:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:38 UTC