[css-values] Computed value of a negative calc unit that doesn't allow negative lengths. #434

emilio · 2016-08-30T21:58:55Z

In the CSS values spec, section 8.1.4. Range Checking:

However, the used value resulting from an expression must be clamped to the range allowed in the target context.

Note that the used value is expected to be clamped, but not the computed value. Both Blink and Firefox (at least, probably other engines too) clamp the value at computed value time, as can be seen running the following test, where all the properties that don't accept negative lengths (like font-size, padding-xxx, etc.) report a computed value of 0px instead of the expected -1px.

<!doctype html>
<script>
window.onload = function() {
  let style = window.getComputedStyle(document.body);
  for (prop of style) {
    if (prop in document.body.style) {
      document.body.style[prop] = 'calc(-1px)';
      console.log(prop, "reported: ", getComputedStyle(document.body)[prop]);
    }
  }
}
</script>

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

emilio · 2016-08-30T21:59:02Z

cc @SimonSapin

emilio · 2016-08-31T23:06:41Z

For the record, Firefox does follow the spec correctly, but clamps the value in GetComputedStyle. I guess that's more of another kind of issue.

dbaron · 2016-08-31T23:29:50Z

For properties where the computed value is a length (i.e., calc()s are computed at computed value time) like font-size, we clamp to nonnegative values at computed value time. For properties where the calc() expression is part of the computed value space (like padding-left) we have clamping at used value time (both in the GetComputedStyle code and in the code that actually uses the value).

I think the spec is still wrong for properties that accept calc() but where calc() is not part of the computed value space since it can be fully computed by computed value time (e.g., font-size).

emilio · 2016-08-31T23:42:28Z

Yeah, and WebKit (and Blink) also clamp (edit: lengths, of course) at computed value time, see https://github.com/WebKit/webkit/blob/e999a05729f1c284fd6e734b88e81a2b078ed80f/Source/WebCore/css/CSSCalculationValue.cpp#L195

tabatkins · 2017-03-31T20:43:19Z

Note that getComputedStyle() returns the used value for a number of length-using properties, so that pollutes the data quite a bit here. WebKit/Blink doesn't actually have a separate notion of "computed value" in the engine.

css-meeting-bot · 2017-05-24T16:48:14Z

The CSS Working Group just discussed CSS Values and Units: clamping calc().

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Topic: CSS Values and Units: clamping calc()
<fantasai> github topic: https://github.com//issues/434
<myles> fantasai: this question was about when things get clamped, if you have a property which doesn't accept negative lengths, for example, the spec says that the used value is clamped, but the computed value is not clamped, and there is some disagreement about whether that is waht is implemented
<myles> fantasai: dbaron says that calc() is computed at computed value liek font size
<fantasai> dbaron's comment:
<fantasai> For properties where the computed value is a length (i.e., calc()s are computed at computed value time) like font-size, we clamp to nonnegative values at computed value time. For properties where the calc() expression is part of the computed value space (like padding-left) we have clamping at used value time (both in the GetComputedStyle code and in the code that actually uses the value).
<fantasai> I think the spec is still wrong for properties that accept calc() but where calc() is not part of the computed value space since it can be fully computed by computed value time (e.g., font-size).
<fantasai> https://github.com//issues/434#issuecomment-243933445
<myles> Rossen: to further TabAtkins's latest point, some or most of this is referring to getComputedStyle() which returns used values not computed values
<myles> Rossen: it seems like WebKit and blink don't have a separate notion of computed values, and this is a transient value for them
<myles> dbaron: there is some value which gets inherited. If you have "25% - 30px" and you say this is the computed value and it gets inherited to something which clamps differently, it should be clamped differently
<myles> Rossen: but you don't know that 25% gets resolved to something > 25px
<myles> fantasai: but you do know this for some properties
<myles> fantasai: for padding-left you don't know this, but font-size, you do know this
<myles> fantasai: you can resolve this at computed value time, and you need to because the value at font-size needs to be computed to a length in order to resolve em
<myles> Rossen: font-size is the only property which resolves percentages outside of layout
<myles> fantasai: dbaron: no
<myles> Rossen: ....
<myles> Rossen: ok.
<myles> fantasai: dbaron, do you have a proposal?
<myles> dbaron: not off the top of my head
<myles> dbaron: i could write one
<myles> fantasai: yes please
<myles> dbaron: we need a distinction where calc() is resolved at computed value time and where calc() is part of a computed value. these needs separate rules
<myles> fantasai: ok.
<myles> fantasai: in the first case, we would do the clamping at computed value time, and the second case, it would be at used value time
<myles> dbaron: yes
<myles> Rossen: how is this observable?
<myles> dbaron: the difference is observable through inheritance. but also, some fo the combinations of ways of specifying it, it doesn't make any sense
<myles> fantasai: let's resolve
<myles> Rossen: we need a proposal
<myles> fantasai: i can write a proposal
<myles> fantasai: w/ dbaron's review
<myles> Rossen: let's see the prose before we resolve
<myles> fantasai: sounds good

tabatkins · 2017-06-09T18:04:58Z

Current text is:

Parse-time range-checking of values is not performed within ''calc()'',
and therefore out-of-range values do not cause the declaration to become invalid.
However, the used value resulting from an expression
must be clamped to the range allowed in the target context.

I propose we change this to:

Parse-time range-checking of value is not performed within ''calc()'',
and therefore out-of-range values do not cause the declaration to become invalid.
However, at the point in the value computation process where the ''calc()'' can be resolved to a single term,
it must be clamped to the ranged allowed in the target context.
(For example, 'font-size' can resolve ''calc(10% - 1em)'' to a single term at computed-value time
(to -.9em, as it turns out),
which will then clamp to ''calc(0)''.
''width: calc(10% - 1em)'', on the other hand,
can't resolve into a single term until used-value time.)

fantasai · 2017-06-21T19:40:46Z

Okay, so there are two interpretations of what dbaron said:

That clamping happens at each stage (computed and used), if it is possible at that stage.
That clamping happens at the stage in which it's guaranteed to be possible.

For example, font-size can compute all of its values at computed value time (and indeed, must do so in order for ems to be able to compute elsewhere). It would clamp at computed value time; and clamping at used value time is unnecessary.

width however depends on layout information to resolve percentages, and therefore it cannot clamp values that mix percentages and lengths at computed value time. Therefore two behaviors are possible:

width clamps calc() expressions that do not mix lengths and percentages at computed value time, and clamps calc() expressions that do mix them at used value time
width only clamps calc() expressions at used value time.

The latter seems slightly simpler, but since it means that a property only clamps exactly one time, a property that currently only has computed-value units and then later adds used-value units would change behavior in an author-observable way.

The wording for each of these options would be different, so we need the WG to resolve on which one.

css-meeting-bot · 2017-07-05T23:44:36Z

The CSS Working Group just discussed [css-values] Computed value of a negative calc unit that doesn't allow negative lengths..

The full IRC log of that discussion

<astearns> topic: [css-values] Computed value of a negative calc unit that doesn't allow negative lengths.
<astearns> github topic: https://github.com//issues/434#issuecomment-310183908
<fantasai> TabAtkins: Spec text previously said that you can put negative numbers into calc(), it's fine, because we can't in general tell if it's negative or not
<fantasai> TabAtkins: we do a clamping at some point if it needs to clamp to a particular range
<fantasai> TabAtkins: Spec previously said that clamping happens at computed value time, but you can't always tell, e.g. width has to happen at used value time
<fantasai> (and font-size has to happen at computed value time)
<fantasai> TabAtkins: fantasai and I discussed and realized there are two possible interpretations of this conclusion
<fantasai> TabAtkins: for properties that clamp at computed value time
<fantasai> TabAtkins: can clamp through at computed value time
<fantasai> TabAtkins: For properties that clamp at used value time, some things can clamp at computed value time
<fantasai> TabAtkins: So do those properties clamp both at used and computed value time, or just at used value time?
<fantasai> Florian: So for multi-stage examples if you can't clamp, you keep a calc() expression, right?
<fantasai> TabAtkins: If you're width is calc(5px-5%) it'll stay as that at computed value, clamps at used value
<birtles> I think we want to clamp as late as possible -- since animation operates on computed values (more or less)
<fantasai> Florian: But if you clamp at calc(5px-5em) can clamp at computed value
<fantasai> TabAtkins: If we clamp only at used value time, we need a definition of which property is which kind of computation
<fantasai> TabAtkins: And then, if we ever add a unit that does used value time computation to a property that currently clamps at computed value time, it would change behavior
<fantasai> TabAtkins: So I prefer clamp at all times behavior
<fantasai> dbaron: I was going to say I prefer the other one
<fantasai> dbaron: birtles said same thing on IRC, but was thinking about animations
<fantasai> dbaron: I was thinking essentially of things like width: calc(-5px) vs width: (0%-5px) vs width: (0-5px) vs width: (10%-5px)
<fantasai> TabAtkins: You can't add 0% to 1s, so while we technically can resolve zero immediately, we would treat it like any other percentage
<fantasai> dbaron: Still worth thinking about animations
<dbaron> s/vs width: (0-5px) //
<fantasai> Florian: If we go that way, pretty important to go the way Tab says for 0%, otherwise discontinuity between 0% and 0.00001%
<birtles> specifically my concern is you want to interpolate using the unclamped values and then clamp
<fantasai> TabAtkins: Don't understand animations issue
<fantasai> TabAtkins: font-size resolves everything at computed time already
<fantasai> TabAtkins: So animations should see value of 0 for 0px, don't see why width should be different
<fantasai> dbaron: You can have a calc() that's a result of interpolation
<fantasai> dbaron: If one of the end points does different things than the intervening value..
<fantasai> TabAtkins: If the values are different, then the middle value will always be a valid value anyway
<fantasai> ... bouncing ...
<fantasai> TabAtkins: If it's a used value time unit involved, then it'll always stay as a calc()
<dbaron> (bouncing meaning timing functions that go outside 0-1)
<fantasai> Florian: None of these allow us to have results earlier, to get fully resolved value at computed value time ..?
<birtles> e.g. if you support calc() for opacity and interpolate between calc(-1) to calc(3) you'll get different results if you clamp the endpoints before interpolating
<fantasai> TabAtkins: Just feels nasty and weird if font-size can clamp its values at computed value time, but width can't even if it uses the exact same value
<fantasai> TabAtkins: And also, as I said before, if we add a used-value time unit to a computed-value-time-only property, it would change behavior
<fantasai> TabAtkins: observable in animations as well as OM
<fantasai> TabAtkins: If we say that a property only has computed value time units, then it can never gain a used-value time unit
<fantasai> Florian: Why?
<fantasai> TabAtkins: Because it will change from clamping at computed value time to clamping at used value time, seeing raw calc() value in the animation
<fantasai> TabAtkins: Difference is e.g. animated from -1000px to 1000px, would stay at 0 for first half if doing used value time, and would animate from 0 to 1000px over full range if doing computed value clamping
<fantasai> dbaron: What do implementations currently do?
<fantasai> TabAtkins writes some tests
<fantasai> TabAtkins: Looks like in Chrome at least, appears to delay width clamping to used value time right now
<TabAtkins> http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?saved=5256
<fantasai> TabAtkins: Spends half of the animation sitting at zero
<fantasai> TabAtkins: wait, this is inconsistent
<TabAtkins> http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?saved=5257
<fantasai> ?: Does the other behavior. never sticks at zero.
<fantasai> TabAtkins: Sounds like no interop
<gsnedders> s/?/Myles:/
<RachelNabors> BAHAHAHAHA... Tab.
<myles> s/?: Does/Myles: Safari does/
<fantasai> astearns: Think we should kick this back to github for testing, come back with animation data
<fantasai> astearns: Anything else to bring up on this topic?

astearns · 2017-08-01T14:18:48Z

Need to see more testing results before this goes on the agenda again.

astearns · 2017-11-01T22:55:26Z

I've written these tests that check whether an animated negative calc value is clamped at computed value time (and thus a range of negative values aren't present in the animation) or used value time (where a range of negative values will be present in clamped form for a duration in the animation)

astearns/web-platform-tests@da5892f

The results I'm seeing are all over the place. Pass means clamping is happening at used value time (mostly). Fail means it's clamping at computed value time.

width and padding-left have the same results

width-up
FF, Chrome: pass (used-time)
Safari: fail (computed-time)
Edge: no animation

width-down
FF: pass (used-time)
Safari, Chrome: fail (computed-time)
Edge: no animation

opacity-up
Chrome, Edge: pass (used-time)
(though the Chrome animation appears to be incorrect)
Safari, FF: fail (computed-time)

opacity-down
Chrome, Safari, FF, Edge: fail (computed-time)

font-size up
Chrome: pass (used-time)
FF, Safari: fail (computed-time)
Edge: loading problem page (though the animation seems to fail)

font-size down
Chrome, FF, Safari: fail (computed-time)
Edge: no animation

birtles · 2017-11-02T03:37:32Z

Alan, which version of FF did you test? The results may not differ but our animation code has changed significantly from version 57 onwards.

astearns · 2017-11-02T04:20:29Z

I'm on Mac nightly, so 58-ish? - I'll edit in the exact version number when I get back to the office tomorrow

birtles · 2017-11-02T04:35:44Z

That's recent enough--thank you!

dbaron · 2017-11-06T23:12:56Z

It may also be worth testing Firefox 56, though, since that's the code currently shipping.

dbaron · 2017-11-07T00:18:20Z

FWIW, I'd note that the Firefox results make sense to me: the properties where calc() can be handled at computed value time "fail", and the properties where it needs to be deferred to used value time "pass".

fantasai · 2017-12-04T20:07:20Z

Agenda+ because we have test results (above) and a proposal (#434 (comment)) and this is blocking CR update of Values and Units for months now so it would be really nice to resolve and republish.

tabatkins · 2017-12-04T20:09:30Z

@dbaron That has the forward-compatibility problems noted by @fantasai in #434 (comment) - if a property initially accepts only computed-value-time units, it would be clamped at computed-value time, but if it later starts accepting used-value-time units, we'd have to move it to clamping at used-value time, which is observably different.

Thus the proposal to clamp at both spots - computed value clamping if possible, used-value clamping otherwise. That way a width: calc(-50px) would clamp "early", at computed-value time, but a width: calc(10px - 10%) would clamp "late", at used-value time.

css-meeting-bot · 2017-12-07T00:35:08Z

The Working Group just discussed [css-values] Computed value of a negative calc unit that doesn't allow negative lengths.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<dael> Topic: [css-values] Computed value of a negative calc unit that doesn't allow negative lengths
<dael> github: https://github.com//issues/434
<dael> astearns: I added some tests with idea we would want to be picking either use or computed time. Sound proposal is to clamp as soon as possible. Correct?
<bkardell_> present +
<dael> fantasai: Not quite. To clamp them both...twice effectively.
<dael> fantasai: Some values you can calc through at the beginning and others you can't.
<fantasai> Summary of the issue / proposal : https://github.com//issues/434#issuecomment-310183908
<dael> dbaron: I think what I suggested is that when the value...when all values of prop can be computed through at computed value you clamp t computed value time. If not you clamp at used value time
<dael> TabAtkins: That is what we're saying
<dael> fantasai: No it's not.
<dael> fantasai: There's two proposals. One is you clamp at each stage if it's possible at thtat stage for values under consideration at that moment.
<dael> TabAtkins: The answer is the forward compat one. A prop is used value clamping if any property needs used value time to tell. It will have an observable effect if we later add an item that is used to a clamp. The clamp as early as you can has no observable effect when we add new things to value space.
<dael> florian: So is there an argument against that?
<fantasai> s/at that moment/; other is you clamp when it's guaranteed to be possible for that property in general./
<dael> astearns: My question is since clamping at used value appears to be slightly useful for animmations could we only clamp at used value time?
<dael> TabAtkins: That might be possible
<dael> fantasai: I'ts not because font size prop needs to compute through to ems can be computed.
<dael> TabAtkins: Is that true though...
<dael> ??: I think so
<dael> TabAtkins: What's wrong with ems computing to a calc.
<dael> fantasai: ems are a length, they resolve to px
<dael> TabAtkins: THat's current. What's wrong with the other way around.
<dael> TabAtkins: It eentually falls through to layout. Only differencec is what things you can observe at computed value time.
<dael> fantasai: It means you'll carry a calc around that's 50px+100%+2em you have to carry that and insert it into a margin that's a descendant of a descenent .... are you crazy?
<dael> TabAtkins: Yeah, that would be the technical consiquencce. Every situation here is bad.
<dael> dbaron: That's bad for impl complexity and performance if you say you can never simplify.
<fantasai> s/..../but still have it resolve on the parent on the original element on which it was declared/
<dael> TabAtkins: Sure.
<dael> florian: What's wrong with clamp as soon as you can. It sounded good to me. It's fine with animations.
<dael> TabAtkins: Someone advocating for that would have to argue for it because I don't know.
<gregwhitworth> "as soon as you can..."
<dael> astearns: I'm still unclear.
<dael> TabAtkins: florian means what we're suggesting.
<dael> florian: As soon as you can based on alues, not based on which property it's in
<fantasai> A) Clamp as early as possible based on values.
<dael> dbaron: % will behave differently depending on how they behave for prop
<fantasai> B) Clamps as early as possible based on the property.
<dael> TabAtkins: We're saying as early in the context of a property. Since in the property you can tell if you can know at computed and clamp them or you wait until used.
<dael> dbaron: Are there cases...where we distinguish between calc 10% and 10% doing something different.
<dael> TabAtkins: I don't think so. In position % don't resolve to a simple pixel value, but still a bare % goes to same in or out of call
<dael> fantasai: If it's negative. We throw those out at parse time
<dael> dbaron: If we want to throw out neg it also makes sense to simplify away the calc.
<dael> dbaron: If you're at a point where you can fix the negative you should comput calc to a single value
<dael> TabAtkins: That's against our general consesus to maintain calc structures somewhat so that authors get to look at a regular thing. I've argued against that, but that was what the group wanted.
<dael> florian: [missed]
<astearns> s/[missed]/editor concerns/
<dael> dbaron: I don'ts ee how you maintain a calc structure while clamping. If you have 50px+2em and you know an em is large, do you change the em or do you turn it into 0px?
<florian> a/[missed]/channelling glazou: when possible, keeping what the author wrote helps with authoring tools/
<dael> TabAtkins: For animation it's 0px
<dael> dbaron: But we're talking what the computed value is
<dael> TabAtkins: Well, what the animated value is. It's mostly the cocmputed, but sometimes diverges.
<dael> TabAtkins: Big obserable thing is in your animated behavior
<dael> dbaron: I guess...you could compute it to calc 0px rather then 0px. But it seems weird to deal with clamping but not simply expressions.
<dael> astearns: Seemes weird to me to have a clamp happen but then give the non-clamped expression and the person using it doens't know if it's eval as expression or clamped value.
<dael> TabAtkins: I don't have a strong opition but people have obj to removing calc before.
<dael> fantasai: Removing calc should be a sep/ issue
<dael> dbaron: It would also be useful to have links to the other decisions.
<dael> TabAtkins: I recall glazou being a proponent of maintaining calc
<dael> astearns: fantasai in IRC had 2 comments [reads]
<dael> astearns: My understanding is we're going with option A
<dael> astearns: Is that correct?
<dael> florian: Yes, I think so
<dael> astearns: What if we resolve on option A: Clamp as early as possible based on values. and I'll open a new issue as to what to do with calc when they're clamped
<dael> dbaron: I'm uncomfortable agreeing to clampa t a time when we're not agreeing to simplify calc at the same time
<dael> florian: Would you obj to not simplifying or is there another option
<dael> TabAtkins: I'm fine with simplifying. There were arguements against it before.
<dael> dbaron: I think we should table and go back to look at those arguments.
<dael> astearns: I'll add a comment that we need to look at why we had been decising to preserve calcs. This being a new situation where we're clamping the value I suspect the previous arguments about preserving calc-ness will go out the window.
<dael> florian: astearns when you make that it's good to mention glazou.
<dael> astearns: I will tag him on it.
<dael> TabAtkins: This is the only thing blocking CR and V&U is quite out of date. Can we do a new CR with this unfinished and get it up to date?
<dael> astearns: How many other changes are in the changes section?
<fantasai> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-3/issues-cr-2016
<dael> TabAtkins: I'll look. A decent amount. A number of new units
<dael> astearns: And we're in CR?
<dael> fantasai: The new units are in 4.
<dael> TabAtkins: Let me linkt he changes.
<dael> astearns: Given we're in CR I don't htink we can ask for updated before we republish.
<dael> TabAtkins: Then let's close it no change and re-open it because this is preventing us from publishing.
<dael> fantasai: I think we can ask for republish and explain this is a minor issue and still open and we'll deal with it.
<dael> astearns: Republishing and knowing we have to do it again is also dumb. I'd rahter wait.
<dael> florian: Does spec have the thing we're likely to resolve to?
<dael> TabAtkins: let me look
<dael> TabAtkins: Current spec says always clamped at used value which is the thing we agreed to not do
<dael> [laughs]
<dael> florian: So resolve unless glazou objects?
<fantasai> s/the thing/the one thing/
<dael> astearns: I don't want to rush this through.
<dael> astearns: I'm sorry.
<dael> TabAtkins: I'm jsut frustrated that we cna't publish because proccess. I'd rather publish and publish again in a montht hen have a month of buggy TR draft.
<dael> astearns: I agree on regular WD but CRs are extra work.

astearns · 2017-12-07T01:14:03Z

In the discussion above we talked about (but did not resolve) on what happens to calc() expressions when the value is clamped. I believe there was consensus on the call to simplify the calc() expression in that case, as the clamping changes the value significantly from what the expression might appear to be.

We've had discussions in the past about preserving calc() expressions for tooling. It might be weird to have a "calc(50px)" value maintain the expression for a computed value, but a "calc(-50px)" value get simplified to "0px" upon clamping at computed value time. But it might be useful to represent the clamping in this edge case. Do you have an opinion, @therealglazou?

therealglazou · 2017-12-13T17:15:26Z

I am fine with the resolution from confcall 20171213.

css-meeting-bot · 2017-12-13T17:15:30Z

The Working Group just discussed [css-values] Computed value of a negative calc unit that doesn't allow negative lengths., and agreed to the following resolutions:

RESOLVED: resolve to clamp negative calc unit values in context as early as possible and then return the clamped calc as a result of the computed style.
RESOLVED: resolve to clamp negative calc unit values in context and simplify as early as possible and then return the clamped calc as a result of the computed style.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<dael> Topic: [css-values] Computed value of a negative calc unit that doesn't allow negative lengths.
<dael> github: https://github.com//issues/434
<dael> Rossen_: This was intro last week. We resolved to clamp as early as possible, but not how to return computed values based on thsi clamping. We wanted to hear about it from a few people, one of them was glazou.
<dael> Rossen_: That's the first topic.
<dael> Rossen_: Is TabAtkins or fantasai on>
<dael> fantasai: I'm on, but no computer.
<dael> TabAtkins: glazou didn't respond and I haven't had time to go through and dig up previous issues. I'm fine resolving now and waiting for compalints later if there are any.
<dael> Rossen_: Let me get us on the resolve. Previously we said clamp negative clamp as soon as possible.
<dael> plinss: We didn't actually resolve.
<astearns> s/plinss/astearns/
<dael> Rossen_: Ah, thank you. So we didn't resolve. But there was consensus on clamping as early as possible, right?
<dael> TabAtkins: I believe so.
<dael> Rossen_: Proposal is negative calc units are clampped as early as possible
<dael> ??: per value or per prop?
<dael> Rossen_: I believe per value
<astearns> s/??/fantasai/
<dael> fantasai: That was key question, per property or per value
<dael> Rossen_: I assumed it was per value and if it was given to the property it inherits
<dael> astearns: Yes, it was def. per value.
<dael> TabAtkins: mmhmm
<dael> Rossen_: right
<dael> Rossen_: So the consensus was to try and clamp those as early as possible. There was not consensus on how to return computed values. As calc with negative value inside or return the clampped value.
<dael> Rossen_: So we could resolve on clamping and leave serialization out. TabAtkins or fantasai preference?
<dael> TabAtkins: Tha'ts fine with me. The q was if you have a calc that's 50px-2em and that's negative at calc time do we simplify to calc0px rather then keepign the original. I'm fine simplifying the internal of the calc to the clampped value. I think that's what dbaron wanted.
<dael> dbaron: I think clamping and simplificiation should go together. If we're clamp we should also simplify.
<dael> TabAtkins: That happens already, we collapse units together. But if we have units that we know will be clampped is the topic.
<dael> dbaron: When you can resolve between px and em and know it's negative I think you also simplify to px.
<dael> TabAtkins: I'm fine with that.
<dael> Rossen_: And the serialized value is whatever the clampped value?
<dael> TabAtkins: With a calc around it.
<dael> Rossen_: Other opinions?
<dael> Rossen_: Objections on resolving to clamp negative calc unit values in context as early as possible and then return the clampped calc as a resolut of the computed style.
<dael> RESOLVED: resolve to clamp negative calc unit values in context as early as possible and then return the clamped calc as a result of the computed style.
<dael> dbaron: We're saying clamp and simplify.
<dael> TabAtkins: Some simplification is specced. This is collapse all units together that can be figured out. So we'd collapse em with px etc.
<dael> fantasai: You have to do that for inheritence to work.
<dael> TabAtkins: Yeah.
<TabAtkins> Right now we already simplify calc(1px + 2px). Reoslution is to also simplify calc(1px + 1in) at computed/used value, and things like calc(1px + 1em) at the point where that's possible.
<dael> RESOLVED: resolve to clamp negative calc unit values in context and simplify as early as possible and then return the clamped calc as a result of the computed style.

… per WG resolution. #434

fantasai · 2018-02-03T07:42:04Z

Ok, I've checked in the following changes:

However, the ~~used~~ value resulting from an expression must be clamped to the range allowed in the target context. Clamping is performed on computed values to the extent possible, and also on used values if computation was unable to sufficiently simplify the expression to allow range-checking.

@emilio @tabatkins Can you let me know if that seems adequate?

tabatkins · 2018-02-09T23:59:07Z

👍

emilio · 2018-02-10T00:17:39Z

Looks good to me, thanks! Maybe noting explicitly that clamping should not be done at specified value time is worth it? WebKit / Blink are buggy here wrt numbers / integers IIRC.

Haven't checked if it's something mentioned in other places of the spec.

fantasai · 2018-02-10T00:22:33Z

@emilio OK, added parenthetical about specified values.

Clamping is performed on computed values to the extent possible, and also on used values if computation was unable to sufficiently simplify the expression to allow range-checking. (Clamping is not performed on specified values.)

fantasai · 2018-02-10T00:53:18Z

Closing out per @emilio’s verification over IRC.

…lues. Linkify different types of values. #434

emilio mentioned this issue Aug 31, 2016

style: Properly track whether negative values of calc() are allowed servo/servo#13121

Merged

3 of 3 tasks complete

emilio closed this Aug 31, 2016

dbaron reopened this Aug 31, 2016

emilio changed the title ~~[css-values] Computed value of a negative calc unit in that doesn't allow negative lengths.~~ [css-values] Computed value of a negative calc unit that doesn't allow negative lengths. Sep 2, 2016

astearns added the css-values-3 label Sep 8, 2016

fantasai added the Agenda+ label May 17, 2017

astearns removed the Agenda+ label May 30, 2017

fantasai added the Agenda+ label Jun 21, 2017

astearns removed the Agenda+ label Jul 10, 2017

fantasai added the Agenda+ F2F label Jul 12, 2017

astearns removed the Agenda+ F2F label Aug 1, 2017

astearns added the Needs Testcase (WPT) label Aug 9, 2017

fantasai added the Agenda+ label Dec 4, 2017

css-meeting-bot removed the Agenda+ label Dec 13, 2017

frivoal mentioned this issue Dec 14, 2017

[mediaqueries] How do media queries with calc() where it can be resolved early serialize? #1968

Closed

fantasai added the Needs Edits label Jan 17, 2018

fantasai added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 3, 2018

[css-values] Clamp calc() values at both computed and used value time…

f50df18

… per WG resolution. #434

fantasai added Closed Accepted by CSSWG Resolution Commenter Response Pending and removed Needs Edits labels Feb 3, 2018

fantasai mentioned this issue Feb 3, 2018

[css-values] Definition of 2D Positioning: the <position> type #2193

Closed

fantasai closed this Feb 10, 2018

fantasai added Commenter Satisfied and removed Commenter Response Pending labels Feb 10, 2018

fantasai added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 10, 2018

[css-values-3] Clarify that clamping is not performed on specified va…

642e0f0

…lues. Linkify different types of values. #434

astearns mentioned this issue Feb 19, 2018

tests for computed values of width with calc() range checks web-platform-tests/wpt#9574

Open

w3c / csswg-drafts

[css-values] Computed value of a negative calc unit that doesn't allow negative lengths. #434

[css-values] Computed value of a negative calc unit that doesn't allow negative lengths. #434

emilio commented Aug 30, 2016

emilio commented Aug 30, 2016

emilio commented Aug 31, 2016

dbaron commented Aug 31, 2016 •

edited

emilio commented Aug 31, 2016 •

edited

tabatkins commented Mar 31, 2017

css-meeting-bot commented May 24, 2017

tabatkins commented Jun 9, 2017

fantasai commented Jun 21, 2017

css-meeting-bot commented Jul 5, 2017

astearns commented Aug 1, 2017

astearns commented Nov 1, 2017 •

edited by tabatkins

birtles commented Nov 2, 2017

astearns commented Nov 2, 2017

birtles commented Nov 2, 2017

dbaron commented Nov 6, 2017

dbaron commented Nov 7, 2017

fantasai commented Dec 4, 2017

tabatkins commented Dec 4, 2017

css-meeting-bot commented Dec 7, 2017

astearns commented Dec 7, 2017

therealglazou commented Dec 13, 2017

css-meeting-bot commented Dec 13, 2017

fantasai commented Feb 3, 2018

tabatkins commented Feb 9, 2018

emilio commented Feb 10, 2018

fantasai commented Feb 10, 2018

fantasai commented Feb 10, 2018

w3c / csswg-drafts

[css-values] Computed value of a negative calc unit that doesn't allow negative lengths. #434

[css-values] Computed value of a negative calc unit that doesn't allow negative lengths. #434

Comments

emilio commented Aug 30, 2016

emilio commented Aug 30, 2016

emilio commented Aug 31, 2016

dbaron commented Aug 31, 2016 • edited

emilio commented Aug 31, 2016 • edited

tabatkins commented Mar 31, 2017

css-meeting-bot commented May 24, 2017

tabatkins commented Jun 9, 2017

fantasai commented Jun 21, 2017

css-meeting-bot commented Jul 5, 2017

astearns commented Aug 1, 2017

astearns commented Nov 1, 2017 • edited by tabatkins

birtles commented Nov 2, 2017

astearns commented Nov 2, 2017

birtles commented Nov 2, 2017

dbaron commented Nov 6, 2017

dbaron commented Nov 7, 2017

fantasai commented Dec 4, 2017

tabatkins commented Dec 4, 2017

css-meeting-bot commented Dec 7, 2017

astearns commented Dec 7, 2017

therealglazou commented Dec 13, 2017

css-meeting-bot commented Dec 13, 2017

fantasai commented Feb 3, 2018

tabatkins commented Feb 9, 2018

emilio commented Feb 10, 2018

fantasai commented Feb 10, 2018

fantasai commented Feb 10, 2018

dbaron commented Aug 31, 2016 •

edited

emilio commented Aug 31, 2016 •

edited

astearns commented Nov 1, 2017 •

edited by tabatkins