-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 679
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
[css-overflow-4] Draft spec for continue: collapse
(#7708)
#10816
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@emilio - Does this look reasonable to you? |
Before now, this PR allowed clamping between any two blocks, to make it closer to the |
b3b73b4
to
1699d89
Compare
In particular, the argument was that |
This matches the proposal in w3c/csswg-drafts#10816, and creates much better behavior. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D157578 bugzilla-url: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1791226 gecko-commit: c6ce92301ca11292a5dd25f07a80243592c94e5a gecko-reviewers: layout-reviewers, dshin
This matches the proposal in w3c/csswg-drafts#10816, and creates much better behavior. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D157578
This matches the proposal in w3c/csswg-drafts#10816, and creates much better behavior. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D157578 bugzilla-url: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1791226 gecko-commit: cf9f54eef33465d089f850a55da5734a911fdac4 gecko-reviewers: layout-reviewers, dshin
This matches the proposal in w3c/csswg-drafts#10816, and creates much better behavior. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D157578
This matches the proposal in w3c/csswg-drafts#10816, and creates much better behavior. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D157578
This matches the proposal in w3c/csswg-drafts#10816, and creates much better behavior. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D157578 bugzilla-url: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1791226 gecko-commit: cf9f54eef33465d089f850a55da5734a911fdac4 gecko-reviewers: layout-reviewers, dshin
This matches the proposal in w3c/csswg-drafts#10816, and creates much better behavior. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D157578 UltraBlame original commit: c6ce92301ca11292a5dd25f07a80243592c94e5a
This matches the proposal in w3c/csswg-drafts#10816, and creates much better behavior. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D157578 UltraBlame original commit: cf9f54eef33465d089f850a55da5734a911fdac4
This matches the proposal in w3c/csswg-drafts#10816, and creates much better behavior. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D157578 UltraBlame original commit: c6ce92301ca11292a5dd25f07a80243592c94e5a
This matches the proposal in w3c/csswg-drafts#10816, and creates much better behavior. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D157578 UltraBlame original commit: cf9f54eef33465d089f850a55da5734a911fdac4
This matches the proposal in w3c/csswg-drafts#10816, and creates much better behavior. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D157578 UltraBlame original commit: c6ce92301ca11292a5dd25f07a80243592c94e5a
This matches the proposal in w3c/csswg-drafts#10816, and creates much better behavior. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D157578 UltraBlame original commit: cf9f54eef33465d089f850a55da5734a911fdac4
This matches the proposal in w3c/csswg-drafts#10816, and creates much better behavior. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D157578
This matches the proposal in w3c/csswg-drafts#10816, and creates much better behavior. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D157578
This matches the proposal in w3c/csswg-drafts#10816, and creates much better behavior. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D157578
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems mostly good. I've made a few small suggestion for normative changes, and more suggestions for editorial changes (most of which are about source formatting).
Most of the remaining issues are orthogonal to this PR, so I think we can merge first and keep working on those later, as soon as the comments on this PR are addressed.
that would receive subsequent content, | ||
then the content displaced by the <a>block overflow ellipsis</a> | ||
must be pushed to that <a>fragmentation container</a>. | ||
must be pushed to that <a>fragmentation container</a>. If it is placed before a [=clamp point=], | ||
then the displaced content must be pushed to the remainder of the [=inline formatting context=]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm ok with that, but I think this has been controversial, with some advocating that the displaced content be dropped / invisible instead, in order to avoid that inserting the ellipsis would cause an extra layout pass. Should we open a separate issue to discuss that aspect?
Or maybe this is unavoidable due to bidi processing of the ellipsis, which means we have to relayout anyway?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The bidi processing of the ellipsis would make it unavoidable to relayout at least that line, but not necessarily the lines after it. But if we only do that line, then there could be inline elements that end up falling out of the layout if they now don't fit in the line with the ellipsis.
@tabatkins , for your comment in #10816 (comment), I'd suggest following up in #10868, because that aspect exists before this PR. The text of the spec may need to change depending on where we land on that issue (and others), but this PR isn't changing it, so I think we should take one problem at a time. |
Co-authored-by: Florian Rivoal <git@florian.rivoal.net>
Co-authored-by: Florian Rivoal <git@florian.rivoal.net>
No description provided.