Conforming to section 5.5 (Rounded Corners/Overlapping Curves) of "CSS
Background and Borders Module Level 3", border radii on elements whose
border curves would have overlapped are uniformly scaled down to the
point that they no longer do.
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-backgrounds/#corner-overlap
through display list building.
The old `flow_origin` concept was ill-defined (sometimes the border box
plus the flow origin, sometimes including horizontal margins and
sometimes not, sometimes including relative position and sometimes not),
leading to brittleness and test failures. This commit reworks the logic
to always pass border box origins in during display list building.
The exact rendering is ill-spec'd. Some things are ugly (especially the
width and height of list style images) but they are infrequently used
and I believe this implementation matches the spec. Numeric lists are
not supported yet, since they will require a separate layout pass.
The implementation is a subclass of `BlockFlow`, on advice from Robert
O'Callahan.
`invert` is not yet supported.
Objects that get layers will not yet display outlines properly. This is
because our overflow calculation doesn't take styles into account and
because layers are always anchored to the top left of the border box.
Since fixing this is work that is not related to outline *per se* I'm
leaving that to a followup and making a note in the code.
This adds the infrastructure necessary to support stacking contexts that
are not containing blocks for absolutely-positioned elements. Our
infrastructure did not support that before. This minor revamp actually
ended up simplifying the logic around display list building and
stacking-relative position computation for absolutely-positioned flows,
which was nice.
This patch is a first stab at implementing border-radius. It looks fine as long as
the border isn't an ellipse (that might not even parse yet), and the border-widths
around a border-radius are the same.
Here's a cool screenshot!
r? @pcwalton @SimonSapin
first-class.
This implements the scheme described here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.servo/sZVPSfPVfkg
This commit changes Servo to generate one display list per stacking
context instead of one display list per layer. This is purely a
refactoring; there are no functional changes. Performance is essentially
the same as before. However, there should be numerous future benefits
that this is intended to allow for:
* It makes the code simpler to understand because the "new layer needed"
vs. "no new layer needed" code paths are more consolidated.
* It makes it easy to support CSS properties that did not fit into our
previous flat display list model (without unconditionally layerizing
them):
o `opacity` should be easy to support because the stacking context
provides the higher-level grouping of display items to which opacity
is to be applied.
o `transform` can be easily supported because the stacking context
provides a place to stash the transformation matrix. This has the side
benefit of nicely separating the transformation matrix from the
clipping regions.
* The `flatten` logic is now O(1) instead of O(n) and now only needs to
be invoked for pseudo-stacking contexts (right now: just floats),
instead of for every stacking context.
* Layers are now a proper tree instead of a flat list as far as layout
is concerned, bringing us closer to a production-quality
compositing/layers framework.
* This commit opens the door to incremental display list construction at
the level of stacking contexts.
Future performance improvements could come from optimizing allocation of
display list items, and, of course, incremental display list
construction.
Instead of creating a display list for the entire page, only create one
for an area that expands around the viewport. On my machine this makes
incremental layout of http://timecube.com 50% faster.
Instead of looking at the display tree, have ContentBox(es)Query consult
the flow tree. This allow optimizing away parts of the display tree
later. To do this we need to be more careful about how we send reflow
requests, only querying the flow tree when possible.
Fixes#3790.
