The used width is already a content width, which doesn't include
borders. Border widths should be subtracted from the specified width
instead, since that initially specifies the total width including
borders, for consistent comparison. Also handle table box padding as an
additional fix.
On style update, we have to preserve the invariant established when we
built the layout tree - some properties are applied to the table wrapper
and the table box values are reset to their initial values.
This also ensures that the containing block of a table box is always a
table wrapper, which isn't the case if we set absolute position on the
box instead of the wrapper.
Fixes#19452.
This fixes the issue when size of abspos items is considered to be
resolvable without performing layout which is not correct in the
scenarious when top/right/bottom/left properties are not auto.
Return error when input svg is not valid and SVGSVGElement is not
present in the tree instead of doing svg_root nullptr dereference.
Fixes crash on https://apps.kde.org/en-gb/
Adding undistributable space right before setting the content width is
incorrect when it's a percentage. Follow the specification and add it to
GRIDMIN and GRIDMAX instead.
In particular, in BFC:
- Non-floating, non-replaced elements
- Floating, non-replaced elements
- Floating, replaced elements
The first two regressed in 1d76126abe
The third one seems to have been introduced by this regression, as it
was seemingly copied from compute_width_for_floating_box in
7f9ede07bc
The fix here has two parts:
1. Don't use the fallback viewBox at all if we're not in SVG-as-image.
2. Don't make a fallback viewBox with zero width and/or height.
This fixes a crash on Bandcamp pages. Thanks Tim Flynn for reporting!
While CSS 2.2 does tell us to use the "auto height for BFC roots"
calculation when resolving auto heights for abspos elements, that
doesn't make sense for other formatting context roots, e.g flex.
In lieu of implementing the entire new absolute positioning model from
CSS-POSITION-3, this patch borrows one small nugget from it: using
fit-content height as the auto height for non-BFC-root abspos elements.
When embedding an SVG in an img element, if the external SVG's root
element has both width and height attributes, but no viewBox attribute,
we now create a fallback viewBox with "0 0 width height".
This appears to match the behavior of other browsers. Inspired by
discussion on Mozilla's bug tracker:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=614649
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 :)
