- From: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 20:33:41 +0200
- To: Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style\@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, Bogdan Brinza <bbrinza@microsoft.com>
Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com> writes: > I understand your hesitancy but as Morten said, Blink and Gecko should > be using Layout to make these decisions as it achieves the _correct_ > result per the spec. Just to clarify, I don't think I said that. :) What I meant was that I think it should be possible to improve this in Blink / Gecko, _without_ requiring layout. After all, layout isn't going to help that much anyway (the actual box sizes calculated during layout are invalid for preferred width calculation, unless they are based on something fixed-sized from CSS, etc.). It's done as part of layout in Presto, because of some Presto-specific technical reasons, and those reasons don't apply in Blink, at least. > We currently do this and do not receive a significant perf regression > as a result. While it does affect performance, I too doubt it's significant, but in any case, like I wrote above, layout doesn't give you the values you're after anyway (but Presto calculates preferred widths as a by-product, when requested), so doing a dedicated preferred widths calculation pass that doesn't lay out should be fine. -- ---- Morten Stenshorne, developer, Opera Software ASA ---- ------------------ http://www.opera.com/ -----------------
Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 18:34:09 UTC