| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
This patch only makes them appear in the tree - they are not yet
inspectable themselves.
|
|
This matches the marker boxes of list-items.
|
|
For now, we only handle their `content` being text, but it's a start!
|
|
Previously, these were added during layout. This didn't fit into the new
world where layout doesn't mutate the tree incrementally, so this patch
adds logic to Layout::TreeBuilder for adding a marker to each list-item
box after its children have been constructed.
|
|
Instead of making each Layout::Node compute style for itself, we now
compute it in TreeBuilder before even calling create_layout_node().
For non-element DOM nodes, we create the style and layout tree node
in TreeBuilder. This allows us to move create_layout_node() from
DOM::Node to DOM::Element.
|
|
This was confusing table layout by adding empty whitspace table boxes
that wound up stealing a bunch of horizontal space.
|
|
There's a subtle difference here. A "block box" in the spec is a
block-level box, while a "block container" is a box whose children are
either all inline-level boxes in an IFC, or all block-level boxes
participating in a BFC.
Notably, an "inline-block" box is a "block container" but not a "block
box" since it is itself inline-level.
|
|
Until now, we've internally thought of the CSS "display" property as a
single-value property. In practice, "display" is a much more complex
property that comes in a number of configurations.
The most interesting one is the two-part format that describes the
outside and inside behavior of a box. Switching our own internal
representation towards this model will allow for much cleaner
abstractions around layout and the various formatting contexts.
Note that we don't *parse* two-part "display" yet, this is only about
changing the internal representation of the property.
Spec: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-display
|
|
We don't want to wrap the inline-blocks the same way we want to wrap
pure inline children.
|
|
|
|
The "Box" suffix added nothing here.
|
|
Our existing implementation did not check the element type of the other
pointer in the constructors and move assignment operators. This meant
that some operations that would require explicit casting on raw pointers
were done implicitly, such as:
- downcasting a base class to a derived class (e.g. `Kernel::Inode` =>
`Kernel::ProcFSDirectoryInode` in Kernel/ProcFS.cpp),
- casting to an unrelated type (e.g. `Promise<bool>` => `Promise<Empty>`
in LibIMAP/Client.cpp)
This, of course, allows gross violations of the type system, and makes
the need to type-check less obvious before downcasting. Luckily, while
adding the `static_ptr_cast`s, only two truly incorrect usages were
found; in the other instances, our casts just needed to be made
explicit.
|
|
An svg layout element without a `SVGSVGElement` ancestor caused a failed
assertion before, because the svg context does not exist when `paint()`
is called
|
|
This makes it much clearer what this cast actually does: it will
VERIFY that the thing we're casting is a T (using is<T>()).
|
|
This makes it more symmetrical with adopt_own() (which is used to
create a NonnullOwnPtr from the result of a naked new.)
|
|
SPDX License Identifiers are a more compact / standardized
way of representing file license information.
See: https://spdx.dev/resources/use/#identifiers
This was done with the `ambr` search and replace tool.
ambr --no-parent-ignore --key-from-file --rep-from-file key.txt rep.txt *
|
|
As the spec for the table fixup algorythm says:
> Treat table-row-groups in this spec also encompass the specialized
> table-header-groups and table-footer-groups.
|
|
"for_each_in_inclusive_subtree(_of_type)"
This is because it includes the initial node that the function was
called on, which makes it "inclusive" as according to the spec.
This is important as there are non-inclusive variants, particularly
used in the node mutation algorithms.
|
|
(...and ASSERT_NOT_REACHED => VERIFY_NOT_REACHED)
Since all of these checks are done in release builds as well,
let's rename them to VERIFY to prevent confusion, as everyone is
used to assertions being compiled out in release.
We can introduce a new ASSERT macro that is specifically for debug
checks, but I'm doing this wholesale conversion first since we've
accumulated thousands of these already, and it's not immediately
obvious which ones are suitable for ASSERT.
|
|
Elements with shadow roots will now recurse into those shadow trees
while building the layout tree.
This is the first step towards basic Shadow DOM support. :^)
|
|
|
