UnresolvedStyleValue::create() has one user where we know if there are
any arbitrary substitution functions in the list of CVs, and two users
where we don't know and just hope there aren't any. I'm about to add
another user that also doesn't know, and so it seems worth just making
UnresolvedStyleValue::create() do that work instead.
We keep the parameter, now Optional<>, so that we save some redundant
work in that one place where we do already know.
The existing resolve methods are not to spec and we are working to
replace them with new ones based on the `simplify_a_calculation_tree`
method.
These are marked as deprecated rather than replaced outright as work
will need to be done on the caller side to be made compatible with the
new methods, for instance the new methods can fail to resolve (e.g.
if we are missing required context), where the existing methods will
always resolve (albeit sometimes with an incorrect value).
No functionality changes.
CSSFontFaceRule now stores its values as a CSSFontFaceDescriptors, with
a ParsedFontFace produced on request. This is exposed via the `style`
attribute, so we pass a lot of tests that try to read values from
that.
We have one test regression, which we passed by mistake before: The test
wanted to ensure we don't allow `@font-face` nested inside other rules.
We passed it just because we discarded any `@font-face` without a
`font-family`. What we're supposed to do is 1) keep at-rules with
missing required descriptors and just not use them, and 2) reject
certain ones when nested.
We may want to cache the ParsedFontFace in the future, but I didn't here
because 1) it's called rarely, and 2) that would mean knowing to
invalidate it when the CSSFontFaceDescriptors changes, which isn't
obvious to me right now.
The goal here is to do something a bit smarter with the parsing here
than we do for properties. Instead of the JSON saying "here are the
values, and here are the keywords, and we can have up to 3", here we
place the syntax in the JSON directly (though currently broken up as
one string per option) and then we attempt to parse each one in
sequence. It's something we'll need eventually for `@property` among
other things.
...However, in this first pass, I've gone with the simplest option of
hard-coding the types instead of figuring them out properly. So there's
a PositivePercentage type and a UnicodeRangeTokens type, instead of
properly implementing the grammar for those in a generic way.
