CARVIEW |
Select Language
HTTP/2 200
date: Thu, 09 Oct 2025 05:25:49 GMT
content-type: text/html
content-encoding: gzip
last-modified: Sat, 15 Jul 2023 03:16:58 GMT
cache-control: max-age=2592000, public
expires: Fri, 07 Nov 2025 06:36:42 GMT
vary: Accept-Encoding
access-control-allow-origin: *
x-request-id: 98b3a01f2ff5265d
strict-transport-security: max-age=15552015; preload
x-frame-options: deny
x-xss-protection: 1; mode=block
cf-cache-status: HIT
set-cookie: __cf_bm=S6tKP.CREZBjMz2VG7ZXUVwTyR8fvyGAN5YFOVQZeq0-1759987549-1.0.1.1-xDKX54M1z_2fGFstGb4ayEHbaWYhUJqmXs0TJEYTV5myZUSetcguP33RfsYlJg3ifXdMQaNy1UUWobRtFd11EFTqw5Dnm4g9P7Cu7KtkoCY; path=/; expires=Thu, 09-Oct-25 05:55:49 GMT; domain=.w3.org; HttpOnly; Secure; SameSite=None
server: cloudflare
cf-ray: 98bb75a73ac9ccbb-BLR
alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400
[css-flexbox] Should <br> get lumped into a "contiguous run of text" to form an anonymous flex item? from Daniel Holbert on 2014-01-22 (www-style@w3.org from January 2014)
[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: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:08:00 -0800
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <52E04140.7020604@mozilla.com>
Hi www-style, I just noticed that the current flexbox ED says the following about anonymous flex items: # ...each contiguous run of text that is # directly contained inside a flex container # is wrapped in an anonymous flex item. https://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox/#flex-item Notably, "contiguous run of text" is rather specific and does not seem to include <br> elements. However, every browser I've tested [1] *does* seems to lump <br> elements into anonymous flex items. Here's a testcase: https://people.mozilla.org/~dholbert/tests/flexbox/compat_tests/anon-flex-items-1.html (If the text "Here comes a <br> element: There it went!" is all grouped together [with a linebreak], then <br> is getting lumped into the anonymous flex item.) SO: Should we change the spec to match implementations? (Maybe the current de facto behavior is really what the spec *wanted* to say, even though it doesn't?) Or is the current spec text really what we want, in which case this is a bug that needs fixing in all modern browsers? Thanks, ~Daniel [1] I've tested IE11, Firefox 26, Opera 12.16, & Chrome 34.0.1788.0 dev
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2014 22:08:27 UTC