InlinePaintable was an ad-hoc paintable type required to support the
fragmentation of inline nodes across multiple lines. It existed because
there was no way to associate multiple paintables with a single layout
node. This resulted in a lot of duplicated code between PaintableBox and
InlinePaintable. For example, most of the CSS properties like
background, border, shadows, etc. and hit-testing are almost identical
for both of them. However, the code had to be duplicated to account for
the fact that InlinePaintable creates a box for each line. And we had
quite many places that operate on paintables with a code like:
```
if (box.is_paintable_box()) {
// do something
} else (box.is_inline_paintable()) {
// do exactly the same as for paintable box but using InlinePaintable
}
```
This change replaces the usage of `InlinePaintable` with
`PaintableWithLines` created for each line, which is now possible
because we support having multiple paintables per layout node. By doing
that, we remove lots of duplicated code and bring our implementation
closer to the spec.
This is the expected behavior per the HTML spec. Fixes an issue where
styling these elements wouldn't have the expected effect unless you also
set the display property.
The paintable tree structure more closely matches the painting order
when fragments are owned by corresponding inline paintables. This
change does not affect the layout tree, as it is more convenient for
layout purposes to have all fragments owned by a block container in
one place.
Additionally, this improves performance significantly on pages with
many fragments, as we no longer have to walk the ancestor chain up
to the closest block container to determine if a fragment belongs
to an inline paintable.
This is a part of refactoring towards making the paintable tree
independent of the layout tree. Now, instead of transferring text
fragments from the layout tree to the paintable tree during the layout
commit phase, we allocate separate PaintableFragments that contain only
the information necessary for painting. Doing this also allows us to
get rid LineBoxes, as they are used only during layout.
This patch makes a few changes to the way we calculate line-height:
- `line-height: normal` is now resolved using metrics from the used
font (specifically, round(A + D + lineGap)).
- `line-height: calc(...)` is now resolved at style compute time.
- `line-height` values are now absolutized at style compute time.
As a consequence of the above, we no longer need to walk the DOM
ancestor chain looking for line-heights during style computation.
Instead, values are inherited, resolved and absolutized locally.
This is not only much faster, but also makes our line-height metrics
match those of other engines like Gecko and Blink.
Setting the marker's content width here is causing the text that follows
the marker to be indented a bit too much. This is noticeable when a line
with a disclosure marker is followed by a line with any other marker. It
previously would look something like:
> Text inline with disclosure-closed marker
* Text inline with circle marker
# Text inline with square marker
Now the disclosure marker line matches other marker types:
> Text inline with disclosure-closed marker
* Text inline with circle marker
# Text inline with square marker
The spec requires that details elements be assigned a shadow tree with
two slots. The first slot is assigned the first summary child element of
the details element. The second slot is assigned all other children.
