Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 50 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign uplayout: Use the margin box for vertical positioning of `inline-block` fragments if `overflow` is not `visible` per CSS 2.1 § 10.8.1. #13732
Conversation
| @@ -8,6 +8,9 @@ | |||
| font: 16px sans-serif; | |||
| color: black; | |||
| background: rgba(176, 214, 255, 1.0); | |||
| overflow: hidden; | |||
| display: inline-block; | |||
| color: white; | |||
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
pcwalton
force-pushed the
pcwalton:inline-block-vertical-align-overflow
branch
from
937faa0
to
79de34b
|
@notriddle Done. r? |
|
@bors-servo r+ |
|
|
bors-servo
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 13, 2016
… r=notriddle layout: Use the margin box for vertical positioning of `inline-block` fragments if `overflow` is not `visible` per CSS 2.1 § 10.8.1. Additionally, this patch reverts the change introduced in #12642 in favor of the spec-compliant behavior described above. This patch also removes the `inline_block_overflow.html` reftest introduced in #3725, as the behavior it expected contradicted CSS 2.1 (and in fact the test fails in Gecko). The changes that this patch makes to `input_selection_a.html` and `input_selection_incremental_a.html` are necessary workarounds to make the tests pass in light of the fact that Servo's UA stylesheet applies `overflow: hidden` to `<input>` elements. I believe that the changes are not necessary in other rendering engines because they hard-code `overflow: hidden`-like behavior for `<input>` elements, while Servo uses the actual CSS `overflow: hidden` behavior. As far as I can tell, Servo's behavior is arguably more spec-compliant, but it remains to be seen how Web compatible it is. Improves the Google results pages. Closes #13707. r? @notriddle <!-- Reviewable:start --> --- This change is [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.svg" height="34" align="absmiddle" alt="Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/13732) <!-- Reviewable:end -->
|
|
highfive
commented
Oct 13, 2016
|
|
@bors-servo: retry |
bors-servo
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 13, 2016
… r=notriddle layout: Use the margin box for vertical positioning of `inline-block` fragments if `overflow` is not `visible` per CSS 2.1 § 10.8.1. Additionally, this patch reverts the change introduced in #12642 in favor of the spec-compliant behavior described above. This patch also removes the `inline_block_overflow.html` reftest introduced in #3725, as the behavior it expected contradicted CSS 2.1 (and in fact the test fails in Gecko). The changes that this patch makes to `input_selection_a.html` and `input_selection_incremental_a.html` are necessary workarounds to make the tests pass in light of the fact that Servo's UA stylesheet applies `overflow: hidden` to `<input>` elements. I believe that the changes are not necessary in other rendering engines because they hard-code `overflow: hidden`-like behavior for `<input>` elements, while Servo uses the actual CSS `overflow: hidden` behavior. As far as I can tell, Servo's behavior is arguably more spec-compliant, but it remains to be seen how Web compatible it is. Improves the Google results pages. Closes #13707. r? @notriddle <!-- Reviewable:start --> --- This change is [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.svg" height="34" align="absmiddle" alt="Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/13732) <!-- Reviewable:end -->
|
|
highfive
commented
Oct 13, 2016
|
|
fragments if `overflow` is not `visible` per CSS 2.1 § 10.8.1. Additionally, this patch reverts the change introduced in #12642 in favor of the spec-compliant behavior described above. This patch also removes the `inline_block_overflow.html` reftest introduced in #3725, as the behavior it expected contradicted CSS 2.1 (and in fact the test fails in Gecko). The changes that this patch makes to `input_selection_a.html` and `input_selection_incremental_a.html` are necessary workarounds to make the tests pass in light of the fact that Servo's UA stylesheet applies `overflow: hidden` to `<input>` elements. I believe that the changes are not necessary in other rendering engines because they hard-code `overflow: hidden`-like behavior for `<input>` elements, while Servo uses the actual CSS `overflow: hidden` behavior. As far as I can tell, Servo's behavior is arguably more spec-compliant, but it remains to be seen how Web compatible it is. Improves the Google results pages. Closes #13707.
pcwalton
force-pushed the
pcwalton:inline-block-vertical-align-overflow
branch
from
79de34b
to
c25dd2a
|
@bors-servo: r=notriddle |
|
|
bors-servo
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 13, 2016
… r=notriddle layout: Use the margin box for vertical positioning of `inline-block` fragments if `overflow` is not `visible` per CSS 2.1 § 10.8.1. Additionally, this patch reverts the change introduced in #12642 in favor of the spec-compliant behavior described above. This patch also removes the `inline_block_overflow.html` reftest introduced in #3725, as the behavior it expected contradicted CSS 2.1 (and in fact the test fails in Gecko). The changes that this patch makes to `input_selection_a.html` and `input_selection_incremental_a.html` are necessary workarounds to make the tests pass in light of the fact that Servo's UA stylesheet applies `overflow: hidden` to `<input>` elements. I believe that the changes are not necessary in other rendering engines because they hard-code `overflow: hidden`-like behavior for `<input>` elements, while Servo uses the actual CSS `overflow: hidden` behavior. As far as I can tell, Servo's behavior is arguably more spec-compliant, but it remains to be seen how Web compatible it is. Improves the Google results pages. Closes #13707. r? @notriddle <!-- Reviewable:start --> --- This change is [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.svg" height="34" align="absmiddle" alt="Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/13732) <!-- Reviewable:end -->
|
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
pcwalton commentedOct 12, 2016
•
edited by larsbergstrom
Additionally, this patch reverts the change introduced in #12642 in
favor of the spec-compliant behavior described above. This patch also
removes the
inline_block_overflow.htmlreftest introduced in #3725, asthe behavior it expected contradicted CSS 2.1 (and in fact the test
fails in Gecko).
The changes that this patch makes to
input_selection_a.htmlandinput_selection_incremental_a.htmlare necessary workarounds to makethe tests pass in light of the fact that Servo's UA stylesheet applies
overflow: hiddento<input>elements. I believe that the changes arenot necessary in other rendering engines because they hard-code
overflow: hidden-like behavior for<input>elements, while Servouses the actual CSS
overflow: hiddenbehavior. As far as I can tell,Servo's behavior is arguably more spec-compliant, but it remains to be
seen how Web compatible it is.
Improves the Google results pages.
Closes #13707.
r? @notriddle
This change is