Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Feature Proposal] rename .whitespace-no-wrap to .whitespace-nowrap #776

Closed
oliverpool opened this issue Mar 17, 2019 · 9 comments
Closed

Comments

@oliverpool
Copy link

To be consistent with the CSS white-space: nowrap; property :-)

https://tailwindcss.com/docs/whitespace-and-wrapping/#app

Probably is CSS a bit inconsistent here (with pre-line for instance), but since I'm used to CSS, I find it much more natural to type whitespace-nowrap than whitespace-no-wrap.

@thecrypticace
Copy link
Contributor

I would keep the hyphenated version. See this: https://wiki.csswg.org/ideas/mistakes

Even the CSS WG would prefer the use of no-wrap (but alas we don't have a time machine)

@adamwathan
Copy link
Member

Hesitant to change this and introduce a BC break for no real great reason, but I do agree in hindsight I think I would have preferred nowrap even though it's dumb. We used to have flex-no-grow and flex-no-shrink which made it easier to justify whitespace-no-wrap but now that those are also gone maybe this is worth "fixing". It is after all the only whitespace class that doesn't match the CSS, although ironically we use whitespace instead of white-space 😅

For anyone curious, it's because "whitespace" (no hyphen) is the proper term, according to Wikipedia at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitespace_character

Still unsure what to do here.

@hacknug
Copy link
Contributor

hacknug commented Mar 22, 2019

Just in case this makes it harder to decide, CSS Text Module Level 3 introduces yet another hyphenated value: break-spaces.

@adamwathan
Copy link
Member

Going to keep this as-is because it's a BC break and we'd probably want to change flex-no-wrap too which would be another BC break.

@oliverpool
Copy link
Author

ok, fair enough (I had no strong opinion about this issue and I'm glad that this has been considered and decided regarding the pros and contras)

@deadcoder0904
Copy link

was gonna suggest this as well by creating a new issue but found this one. @adamwathan change of mind by now if anything’s changed?

@oliverpool
Copy link
Author

@deadcoder0904 it would now be a breaking change of the 1.X version (my issue was before the release of 1.0) and it is probably not worth it...

@imotD
Copy link

imotD commented Dec 18, 2020

thanks. solved my problem

@oliverpool
Copy link
Author

This has been changed in v2 (see #2664)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants