The [current implementation](http://mxr.mozilla.org/servo/source/components/script/dom/element.rs#666) is wrong as it always tries to cast the furthest ancestor into an element.
When the method is invoked on an element that is in the document tree, this will be the `Document` node, which is not an element. The ```last().map(ElementCast::to_temporary)``` returns Some(None) hence the method will return ```None```, while the correct behaviour is to return the ```html``` node.
This PR interprets the line ```"furthest ancestor element node of whatever node is being discussed"``` in the spec to mean ```"find the furthest ancestor that is an element node"```.
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/6043)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
This property determines the background positioning area, that is the position of
the origin of an image specified using the 'background-image' CSS property.
'background-origin' is ignored when background-attachment is fixed.
Spec: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-backgrounds-3/#background-originFixes#6045.
`BaseFlow::position` is relative to the parent flow's margin box in the inline direction. We need to use the parent's `position` as the container size when translating it to physical coordinates, or we get incorrect results for non-LTR content.
r? @pcwalton
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/6049)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
`BaseFlow::position` is relative to the parent flow's margin box in the inline
direction. We need to use the parent's `position` as the container size when
translating it to physical coordinates, or we get incorrect results for
non-LTR content.
This relies on a global webdriverCallback function, which is visible to content.
Obviously that's not a long term solution for a number of reasons, but it allows
us to experiment for now
The basic idea is it's safe to output an image for reftest by testing:
- That the compositor doesn't have any animations active.
- That the compositor is not waiting on any outstanding paint messages to arrive.
- That the script tasks are "idle" and therefore won't cause reflow.
- This currently means page loaded, onload fired, reftest-wait not active, first reflow triggered.
- It could easily be expanded to handle pending timers etc.
- That the "epoch" that the layout tasks have last laid out after script went idle, is reflected by the compositor in all visible layers for that pipeline.
<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/6031)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
The basic idea is it's safe to output an image for reftest by testing:
- That the compositor doesn't have any animations active.
- That the compositor is not waiting on any outstanding paint messages to arrive.
- That the script tasks are "idle" and therefore won't cause reflow.
- This currently means page loaded, onload fired, reftest-wait not active, first reflow triggered.
- It could easily be expanded to handle pending timers etc.
- That the "epoch" that the layout tasks have last laid out after script went idle, is reflected by the compositor in all visible layers for that pipeline.
absolutely-positioned elements.
This also implements a little bit of the infrastructure needed to
support for fragmentation via support for multiple positioned fragments
in one flow.
Improves Google.
