Skip to content

Conversation

@lilles
Copy link
Member

@lilles lilles commented Oct 15, 2024

Add "run snapshot post-layout state steps" as resolved in issue #10796. Let other specifications specify what they snapshot on a feature-by-feature basis.

Resolution: #10796 (comment)

Add "run snapshot post-layout state steps" as resolved in issue w3c#10796.
Let other specifications specify what they snapshot on a
feature-by-feature basis.
@lilles lilles requested a review from emilio October 15, 2024 15:57
@lilles
Copy link
Member Author

lilles commented Oct 15, 2024

@emilio Does this look like a reasonable approach?

HTML would then invoke this step in the appropriate place, and other specs would refer to this and say what they snapshot.

Copy link
Collaborator

@emilio emilio left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks good conceptually, a nit and few doubts about editorial-ish things... Thanks!


1. For each CSS feature that needs to snapshot post-layout state, take a snapshot of the relevant state.

The state that is snapshot is defined in other specifications. These steps must not invalidate <var>doc</var> or any other {{Document}}s in such a way that other post-layout snapshotting steps can observe that such snapshotting happened. It follows that the order of which such snapshotting takes place should not matter.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't quite know what the right thing to do is for other specs to reference these kind of things, but be good to have them listed here or something actually... @tabatkins do you know what the best thing to do here is?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We just need some defined term here for other specs to hook, like <dfn export>snapshotted post-layout state</dfn>.

And fwiw, the "should" in this line needs to be "must".

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've added the "should" -> "must" to #11056

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants