Compute the contributions to a spanning cell width from each cell in the
span. This better handles uneven column widths, since each cell
contribution is proportional with its own width as opposed to the own
width of the first cell in the span.
This better matches the behavior of other browsers and further aligns
with the specification.
The part in FFC where we ask the parent formatting context to size the
flex container midway through layout is really weird, but let's at least
be consistently weird for BFC and IFC. Since IFC always works within its
parent BFC, it can simply forward these requests to the BFC.
This fixes an issue where inline-flex containers incorrectly had main
axis margins subtracted from their content size.
With multi-line text cells, we don't reliably know the height would stay
the same as the one set by the independent format context run. In such
situations, we can end up with a table box which is sized inconsistently
with the grid boxes of the table due to differences in line breaks.
Absolutely positioned elements should have their percentage sizes
resolved against the padding box of the containing block, not the
content box.
From CSS-POSITION-3 <https://www.w3.org/TR/css-position-3/#def-cb>
"..the containing block is formed by the padding edge of the ancestor.."
When resolving a percentage min-width or min-height size against a
containing block currently under a min-content constraint, we should act
as if the containing block has zero size in that axis.
"display: max-content" is not a thing. The test was actually not working
correctly, it just looked like it did. Now it has correct metrics for
the body element.
This is technically "undefined behavior" per CSS 2.2, but it seems
sensible to mirror the behavior of max-height in the same situation.
It also appears to match how other engines behave.
Fixes#19242
The margin from the containing blocks shouldn't be included in the
amount by which we increment x after a float was places. That coordinate
should be relative to the containing block.
Fixes the comments layout on https://lobste.rs.
The spec says the result of this algorithm is undefined in such cases,
and it appears that other engines yield a zero size.
More importantly, this prevents us from leaking a non-finite value into
the layout tree.
Instead of hard-coding a check for "calc", we now call out to
parse_dynamic_value() which allows use of other functions like min(),
max(), clamp(), etc.
Add logic to compute {min, max}-height and use min-height when
calculating table height, per specifications.
Fixes some issues with phylogenetic tree visualizations on Wikipedia.
Before this change we always returned the font's point size as the
x-height which was basically never correct.
We now get it from the OS/2 table (if one with version >= 2 is available
in the file). Otherwise we fall back to using the ascent of the 'x'
glyph. Most fonts appear to have a sufficiently modern OS/2 table.
Calculate a "preferred aspect ratio" based on the value of
`aspect-ratio` and the presence of a natural aspect ratio, and use that
in layout.
This is by no means complete or perfect, but we do now apply the given
aspect-ratio to things.
The spec is a bit vague, just saying to calculate sizes for
aspect-ratio'ed boxes the same as you would for replaced elements. My
naive solution here is to find everywhere we were checking for a
ReplacedBox, and then also accept a regular Box with a preferred aspect
ratio. This gets us pretty far. :^)
https://www.w3.org/TR/css-sizing-4/#aspect-ratio-minimum is not at all
implemented.
We were incorrectly returning a "specified size suggestion" for flex
items with a definite main size where that main size was also automatic.
This led to us incorrectly choosing 0 as the automatic minimum size for
that flex item, instead of its min-content size.
Adds a second pass to resolve percentage paddings and margins of grid
items after track sizes are known. If resolving percentage paddings
or margins affects tracks sizes then second pass to re-resolve track
sizes might also be needed but I cannot come up with an example to
reproduce that so we can leave it to improve in the future :)
This fixes the issue when functions that distribute base_size
or growth_limit to tracks only considered *affected* spanned tracks
while calculating left extra that is available for distribution while
indeed it should be just *all* spanned track by specific item that
extra space size.
This fixes the issue that currently we use "auto" as initial value for
grid-template-column and grid-template-rows although spec says it
should be "none". This makes a lot of difference for these properties
because currently we represent "auto" as a list with one auto-sized
track which means initial value for grid-template-column defines one
"explicit" track while it should define none of them.
This change makes grid-auto-columns/rows be applied to the correct
tracks when initial values is used for grid-template-column/rows.
This changes grid items position storage type from unsigned to signed
integer so it can represent negative offsets and also updates placement
for grid items with specified column to correctly handle negative
offsets.
This fixes an issue where images with padding and/or border did not have
their size adjusted for `border-box`, thereby becoming larger than
intended by the author.
If a box has a negative margin-left, it may have a negative effective
offset within its parent BFC root coordinate system.
We can account for this when calculating the amount of left-side float
intrusion by flooring the X offset at 0.
Now that we have a way to resolve calc() lengths without a layout node,
we can finally support calc() values in font-size.
This wasn't possible before because font-related properties have to be
resolved eagerly in StyleComputer due to font-relative CSS length units
depending on the computed font being known.
Use contains_percentage() that works for calc() values instead of
is_percentage().
This fixes issue when tracks with calc() that has percentages where
considered as "fixed" tracks with resolvable size which led to
incorrectly resolved infinite final track sizes.
This reintroduces bounds-checking for the CSS `<angle>`, `<frequency>`,
`<integer>`, `<length>`, `<number>`, `<percentage>`, `<resolution>`,
and `<time>` types.
I regressed this around 6b8f484114 when
changing how we parsed StyleValues.
This is an improvement from before though, since we now allow the bounds
of a dimension type to have units.
Added a test to make sure we don't regress this again. :^)
If a flex item's main size is a CSS calc() value that resolves to a
length and contains a percentage, we can only resolve it when we have
the corresponding reference size for the containing block.
Previously, we would always respect the `text-align` property, even if
the text being aligned was too long for its line box and would be
clipped. This led to seeing the clipped middle/end of strings when we
should instead always see the beginning of the text.
This is a hack to emulate the behavior of other engines that use
fixed-point math. By rounding to 3 decimals, we retain a fair amount of
detail, while still allowing overshooting 100% without breaking lines.
This is both gross and slow, but it fixes real sites. Notably, the
popular Bootstrap library uses overshooting percentages in their
12-column grid system.
This hack can be removed when CSSPixels is made a fixed-point type.
If the flex container is being sized under a max-content main size
constraint, there is effectively infinite space available for flex
items. Thus, flex lines should be allowed to be infinitely long.
This is a little awkward, because the spec doesn't mention specifics
about how to resolve flexible lengths during intrninsic sizing.
I've marked the spec deviations with big "AD-HOC" comments.
