… and converting them to flow-relative geometric values.
These values are almost always used to size and position a fragment within its containing block, so using the mode of the containing block seems more correct.
Note that the `writing-mode` and `direction` properties are disabled in Servo at the moment, so this PR by itself should have no effect: the writing mode of an element is always the same of that of its containing block since they’re both horizontal rtl.
We want to mutate them when lazily computing their content sizes, but they
are behind an Arc for the hoisting infra, so it also needs its own layer
of inner mutability.
We want to compute content sizes on demand rather than eagerly so we will
need to mutate the independent formatting contexts that own the content sizes.
This avoids the use of lookup tables for containing blocks when
constructing the stacking context tree.
This seems to catch some laid-out hoisted fragments that were otherwise
dropped in the previous design. The changes cause one new test to pass
and one to fail. Visual examination of the failing tests reveals that
it's a progression (list markers are appearing when they were previously
not rendered).
Instead of painting hoisted position fragments in the order to which
they are hoisted, paint them in tree order and properly incorporate them
into the stacking context.
We do this by creating a placeholder fragment in the original tree position
of hoisted fragments. The ghost fragment contains an atomic id which
links back to the hoisted fragment in the containing block.
While building the stacking context, we keep track of containing blocks
and their children. When encountering a placeholder fragment we look at
the containing block's hoisted children in order to properly paint the
hoisted fragment.
One notable design modification in this change is that hoisted fragments
no longer need an AnonymousFragment as their parent. Instead they are
now direct children of the fragment that establishes their containing block.
This is a feature that was never properly implemented in the previous
layout system. We still need to preserve their in-tree order in the
display list though.
This method doesn't actually do any layout, but converts this block to a
HoistedAbsolutelyPositionedBox which is hoisted and then laid-out with
its containing block later. This makes the code a little easier to read.
Iits details are now private to the module.
It has a couple methods that take closures to make sure that "before" and "after" steps are done together:
* In an absolutely positioned box, take care of nested abspos (establish a new containing block, etc.)
* For a box that *might* be `position: relative`, optionally take care of the same.
