Skip to content

[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

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Jun 3, 2025

Conversation

andreubotella
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@bfgeek
Copy link

bfgeek commented Sep 17, 2024

@emilio - Does this look reasonable to you?

@andreubotella
Copy link
Member Author

Before now, this PR allowed clamping between any two blocks, to make it closer to the continue: discard behavior, but in hallway conversations in TPAC we agreed that having it clamp to the last line before clamp, even if there are lineless boxes after it that will still fit, was a better behavior. I just updated the spec text to reflect this.

@tabatkins
Copy link
Member

but in hallway conversations in TPAC we agreed that having it clamp to the last line before clamp, even if there are lineless boxes after it that will still fit, was a better behavior

In particular, the argument was that auto clamping should be equivalent to the largest clamp that avoids overflow; it's weird if auto actually lets you include an amount of content between two values, and thus can't be reproduced directly.

moz-wptsync-bot pushed a commit to web-platform-tests/wpt that referenced this pull request Oct 19, 2024
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
moz-v2v-gh pushed a commit to mozilla/gecko-dev that referenced this pull request Oct 19, 2024
moz-wptsync-bot pushed a commit to web-platform-tests/wpt that referenced this pull request Oct 21, 2024
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
moz-v2v-gh pushed a commit to mozilla/gecko-dev that referenced this pull request Oct 21, 2024
moz-wptsync-bot pushed a commit to web-platform-tests/wpt that referenced this pull request Oct 21, 2024
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
gecko-dev-updater pushed a commit to marco-c/gecko-dev-wordified-and-comments-removed that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2024
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
gecko-dev-updater pushed a commit to marco-c/gecko-dev-wordified-and-comments-removed that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2024
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
gecko-dev-updater pushed a commit to marco-c/gecko-dev-comments-removed that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2024
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
gecko-dev-updater pushed a commit to marco-c/gecko-dev-comments-removed that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2024
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
gecko-dev-updater pushed a commit to marco-c/gecko-dev-wordified that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2024
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
gecko-dev-updater pushed a commit to marco-c/gecko-dev-wordified that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2024
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
i3roly pushed a commit to i3roly/firefox-dynasty that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2024
i3roly pushed a commit to i3roly/firefox-dynasty that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@frivoal frivoal left a 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.

@frivoal
Copy link
Collaborator

frivoal commented Nov 4, 2024

@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.

andreubotella and others added 2 commits December 3, 2024 10:10
Co-authored-by: Florian Rivoal 
Co-authored-by: Florian Rivoal 
Copy link
Member

@tabatkins tabatkins left a 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.

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.
Copy link
Member

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.

Copy link
Member Author

@andreubotella andreubotella May 23, 2025

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.

@andreubotella
Copy link
Member Author

andreubotella commented May 23, 2025

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?

@tabatkins tabatkins merged commit ab4d234 into main Jun 3, 2025
1 check passed
@andreubotella andreubotella deleted the continue-collapse branch June 9, 2025 11:21
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants