While 788d5368a7 took care of better text
marker positioning, this improves graphical marker positioning instead.
By looking at how Firefox and Chrome render markers, it's clear that
there are three parts to positioning a graphical marker:
* The containing space that the marker resides in;
* The marker dimensions;
* The distance between the marker and the start of the list item.
The space that the marker can be contained in, is the area to the left
of the list item with a height of the marker's line-height. The marker
dimensions are relative to the marker's font's pixel size: most of them
are a square at 35% of the font size, but the disclosure markers are
sized at 50% instead. Finally, the marker distance is always gauged at
50% of the font size.
So for example, a list item with `list-style-type: disc` and `font-size:
20px`, has 10px between its start and the right side of the marker, and
the marker's dimensions are 7x7.
The percentages I've chosen closely resemble how Firefox lays out its
list item markers.
This commit is a three-parter that is hard to separate without breaking
marker rendering:
1. Any marker style that results in a string, except for a literal
string (e.g. `list-style-type: "@"`), should get the string ". "
appended. We forgot to do this for the alpha and roman types.
2. Instead of using the "pixel size rounded up" from a font and adding
an arbitrary 1 to that, we now use the exact pixel size for as long
as possible to improve our vertical positioning of markers.
3. Instead of always adding a "default marker width" to the marker
content width, we now only do this if we did not have text metrics
available (i.e. the marker style is not a text type). This greatly
improves horizontal positioning of text markers.
Whenever we end up with a scrollable overflow rect that goes beyond
either of its axes (i.e. the rect has a negative X or Y position
relative to its parent's absolute padding box position), we need to clip
that rect to prevent going into the "unreachable scrollable overflow".
This fixes the horizontal scrolling on https://ladybird.org (gets more
pronounced if you make the window very narrow).
...with inline children. This fixes an issue when we ignore abspos boxes
contained by PaintableWithLines while calculating overflow rect size.
Lots of layout tests are affected, because now PaintableWithLines has
overflow rect.
`Text/input/DOM/Element-set-scroll-left.html` is also affected and now
matches other browsers.
We were only dumping a PaintableBox' dimensions if its layout node was a
Layout::Box as well, causing us to not dump the dimensions of paintables
for inline nodes in the paintable tree.
Browsers such as Chrome and Firefox apply an arbitrary scale to the
current font size if `normal` is used for `line-height`. Firefox uses
1.2 while Chrome uses 1.15. Let's go with the latter for now, it's
relatively easy to change if we ever want to go back on that decision.
This also requires updating the expectations for a lot of layout tests.
The upside of this is that it's a bit easier to compare our layout
results to other browsers', especially Chrome.
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.
