-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 715
[css-fonts] Should font-palette
be reset by the font
shorthand?
#7832
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
The spec was only recently clarified to explicitly list all the longhands which are reset by the
|
And |
Good catch. Do we need to have discussion on a call so we are sure that the list of longhands reset by the a) complete |
I think it'd be worth asking the question, at least. I could imagine authors wanting to set |
This currently fails in webkit & blink; w3c/csswg-drafts#7832 asks the CSS WG to confirm whether to keep the existing spec (which is what's implemented here) or change it to match those implementations (in which case we'll need to do a minor followup to tweak our behavior accordingly). Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D158787 bugzilla-url: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1791778 gecko-commit: 8e023280032c8b32c1eaeaf595c2eb989a4427f3 gecko-reviewers: emilio
This currently fails in webkit & blink; w3c/csswg-drafts#7832 asks the CSS WG to confirm whether to keep the existing spec (which is what's implemented here) or change it to match those implementations (in which case we'll need to do a minor followup to tweak our behavior accordingly). Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D158787 bugzilla-url: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1791778 gecko-commit: 4e4eb99a7fd95b2e288e478b5d97019b259ada91 gecko-reviewers: emilio
This currently fails in webkit & blink; w3c/csswg-drafts#7832 asks the CSS WG to confirm whether to keep the existing spec (which is what's implemented here) or change it to match those implementations (in which case we'll need to do a minor followup to tweak our behavior accordingly). Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D158787 bugzilla-url: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1791778 gecko-commit: 528b4c022a44e15cd66ef9dca54e7e67c89e2ba4 gecko-reviewers: emilio
…e font shorthand. r=emilio This currently fails in webkit & blink; w3c/csswg-drafts#7832 asks the CSS WG to confirm whether to keep the existing spec (which is what's implemented here) or change it to match those implementations (in which case we'll need to do a minor followup to tweak our behavior accordingly). Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D158787
…e font shorthand. r=emilio This currently fails in webkit & blink; w3c/csswg-drafts#7832 asks the CSS WG to confirm whether to keep the existing spec (which is what's implemented here) or change it to match those implementations (in which case we'll need to do a minor followup to tweak our behavior accordingly). Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D158787
This currently fails in webkit & blink; w3c/csswg-drafts#7832 asks the CSS WG to confirm whether to keep the existing spec (which is what's implemented here) or change it to match those implementations (in which case we'll need to do a minor followup to tweak our behavior accordingly). Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D158787 bugzilla-url: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1791778 gecko-commit: 2b445c555e746e572a28e612452ef26d2ecfb9e8 gecko-reviewers: emilio
…e font shorthand. r=emilio This currently fails in webkit & blink; w3c/csswg-drafts#7832 asks the CSS WG to confirm whether to keep the existing spec (which is what's implemented here) or change it to match those implementations (in which case we'll need to do a minor followup to tweak our behavior accordingly). Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D158787
…e font shorthand. r=emilio This currently fails in webkit & blink; w3c/csswg-drafts#7832 asks the CSS WG to confirm whether to keep the existing spec (which is what's implemented here) or change it to match those implementations (in which case we'll need to do a minor followup to tweak our behavior accordingly). Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D158787
This currently fails in webkit & blink; w3c/csswg-drafts#7832 asks the CSS WG to confirm whether to keep the existing spec (which is what's implemented here) or change it to match those implementations (in which case we'll need to do a minor followup to tweak our behavior accordingly). Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D158787 bugzilla-url: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1791778 gecko-commit: 8e023280032c8b32c1eaeaf595c2eb989a4427f3 gecko-reviewers: emilio
This currently fails in webkit & blink; w3c/csswg-drafts#7832 asks the CSS WG to confirm whether to keep the existing spec (which is what's implemented here) or change it to match those implementations (in which case we'll need to do a minor followup to tweak our behavior accordingly). Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D158787 bugzilla-url: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1791778 gecko-commit: 4e4eb99a7fd95b2e288e478b5d97019b259ada91 gecko-reviewers: emilio
This currently fails in webkit & blink; w3c/csswg-drafts#7832 asks the CSS WG to confirm whether to keep the existing spec (which is what's implemented here) or change it to match those implementations (in which case we'll need to do a minor followup to tweak our behavior accordingly). Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D158787 bugzilla-url: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1791778 gecko-commit: 528b4c022a44e15cd66ef9dca54e7e67c89e2ba4 gecko-reviewers: emilio
This currently fails in webkit & blink; w3c/csswg-drafts#7832 asks the CSS WG to confirm whether to keep the existing spec (which is what's implemented here) or change it to match those implementations (in which case we'll need to do a minor followup to tweak our behavior accordingly). Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D158787 bugzilla-url: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1791778 gecko-commit: 2b445c555e746e572a28e612452ef26d2ecfb9e8 gecko-reviewers: emilio
…e font shorthand. r=emilio This currently fails in webkit & blink; w3c/csswg-drafts#7832 asks the CSS WG to confirm whether to keep the existing spec (which is what's implemented here) or change it to match those implementations (in which case we'll need to do a minor followup to tweak our behavior accordingly). Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D158787
…e font shorthand. r=emilio This currently fails in webkit & blink; w3c/csswg-drafts#7832 asks the CSS WG to confirm whether to keep the existing spec (which is what's implemented here) or change it to match those implementations (in which case we'll need to do a minor followup to tweak our behavior accordingly). Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D158787
…e font shorthand. r=emilio This currently fails in webkit & blink; w3c/csswg-drafts#7832 asks the CSS WG to confirm whether to keep the existing spec (which is what's implemented here) or change it to match those implementations (in which case we'll need to do a minor followup to tweak our behavior accordingly). Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D158787
…e font shorthand. r=emilio This currently fails in webkit & blink; w3c/csswg-drafts#7832 asks the CSS WG to confirm whether to keep the existing spec (which is what's implemented here) or change it to match those implementations (in which case we'll need to do a minor followup to tweak our behavior accordingly). Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D158787
So if I understand correctly, what we have is the following: Set Explicitly
Reset Implicitly
Cascaded Independently
And the question right now is whether Fwiw, I think it'd be helpful to include a Note of any |
Exactly |
The CSS Working Group just discussed
The full IRC log of that discussion<chris_> q+<flackr> jfkthame: When implementing font palette for gecko, I noticed in blink and webkit the font shorthand doesn't reset ?? to the initial. This could just be a bug, but I wonder if it would be preferable <flackr> s/??/font-palette <flackr> jfkthame: font palette seems to be a bit different in that it may be set on the root, and devs may be surprised when the font short-hand loses that setting <astearns> ack chris_ <flackr> chris_: Agree it's surprising. The only reason the spec doesn't do this was because it's recent. <flackr> chris_: This one should not have been in the implicitly reset <flackr> chris_: We should use set explicitly, reset implicitly, and cascade?? <flackr> chris_: it's common to set on the root, it makes sense <dbaron> s/cascade??/cascaded independently/ <flackr> RESOLVED: Use set explicitly, reset implicitly and cascade implicitly terms <flackr> RESOLVED: Put font-palette in the cascaded independently category <flackr> fantasai: Every property that's not part of the shorthand be cascaded independently. It would be helpful to have a note for the properties that begin with font- to consider them explicitly <flackr> astearns: are there any properties beside font-palette and font-synthesis in this category? <flackr> chris_: don't think so, might happen <flackr> RESOLVED: Explicitly enumerate all properties which are cascaded independently that start with font- |
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=248949 rdar://103119662 Reviewed by Cameron McCormack. It was resolved in w3c/csswg-drafts#7832 to remove font-palette from the font shorthand. WPT synced from Mozilla's change: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D164128 * LayoutTests/fast/css/font-shorthand-expected.txt: * LayoutTests/imported/w3c/web-platform-tests/css/cssom/cssom-getPropertyValue-common-checks-expected.txt: * LayoutTests/imported/w3c/web-platform-tests/css/cssom/font-shorthand-serialization-expected.txt: * LayoutTests/imported/w3c/web-platform-tests/css/css-fonts/font-palette-vs-shorthand-expected.txt: * LayoutTests/imported/w3c/web-platform-tests/css/css-fonts/font-palette-vs-shorthand.html: * LayoutTests/imported/w3c/web-platform-tests/css/css-fonts/font-shorthand-serialization-prevention-expected.txt: * LayoutTests/imported/w3c/web-platform-tests/css/css-fonts/font-shorthand-serialization-prevention.html: * LayoutTests/platform/win/fast/css/font-shorthand-expected.txt: * LayoutTests/platform/win/imported/w3c/web-platform-tests/css/css-fonts/font-shorthand-serialization-prevention-expected.txt: * Source/WebCore/css/CSSProperties.json: * Source/WebCore/css/ComputedStyleExtractor.cpp: (WebCore::fontShorthandValue): * Source/WebCore/css/StylePropertyShorthand.h: Canonical link: https://commits.webkit.org/257772@main
As we're currently working on the reset behaviour it'd be good to be able to quote an updated spec text. |
I will try to get this done in the next few days |
Added the list of set explicitly, reset implicitly and cascade implicitly groups. |
@drott please take a look |
Thanks, mostly LGTM, I left two comments here regarding extra prose in the beginning and end. |
I do not see |
Not intentional, thanks for noticing, corrected.
The "extra text" at the beginning has been there since CSS1, although I moved it to the start of the section. |
Thanks for the edits, @svgeesus. |
Currently, the spec for the
font
shorthand says that:However, it appears that neither the WebKit nor Blink implementations actually do this:
Should the spec be revised to reflect implementation reality here, or should this simply be regarded as a bug in those browsers?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: