-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 719
[css-overflow-4] Draft spec for continue: collapse
(#7708)
#10816
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
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 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
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.
@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
Co-authored-by: Florian Rivoal
178c050
to
0213411
Compare
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.
LGTM after an example or explanation of the one case I called out.
css-overflow-4/Overview.bs
Outdated
is not greater than the [=block size=] the box would have | ||
if its automatic block size were infinite; | ||
or if that is not the case for any possible clamp points, | ||
to the first possible clamp point in the block 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.
This could use an example of what the "Otherwise" behavior is trying to guard against.
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.
It's not guarding against anything. In this PR, currently, line-clamp: 3
will set max-lines: 3
, and that will clamp based on the number of lines; while line-clamp: auto
will set max-lines: none
, which will clamp based on the height. (I opened #12041 to discuss this, though.) This height-based clamping is what the entire "otherwise" clause describes.
I will definitely have to do some rewriting and clarification, though, because this is clearly not obvious on first glance.
I just noticed that @syncbot for some reason got rid of three commits I made updating this PR to match the April F2F resolutions. I've just cherry-picked them. @tabatkins, would you mind reviewing those again? |
No description provided.