csswg-drafts

t this is an area in which we have an advantage with our API being in Rust. And our layout engine Taffy (https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy) is already highly modular. Custom widgets would go beyond just layout and allow for fully custom layout, paint, accessibility, event handling, etc similar to a widget in a traditional GUI toolkit like GTK or Cocoa. I also have a proposal to add a new unit to CSS itself (inspired by how many non-web UI systems do layout), which has the potential to greatly simplify web layout in the common cases https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8267. It's been on the back burner for a bit, but I should really get back to it at some point (I really want to actually implement the algorithms).

ue="male"], cell-age[value > "30"])') You can even have (truly) structured cells! Instead of SELECT * FROM Employees WHERE name->>'first_name' = 'John' you can have: employeesTbl.querySelectorAll('row:has(cell-name:has(cell-first_name[value="John"]))') And for querying array-like structures, instead of: SELECT * FROM employees WHERE skills::jsonb ? 'JavaScript'; you can have: employeesTbl.querySelectorAll('row:has(cell-skills > cell-skill[value="JavaScript"])') I can certainly imagine the performance to be horrible, but having never tried out the idea (and having too meager a mental model of DOM performance to reason from) I can also imagine it being surprisingly decent for smaller datasets. Who knows? :-) Edit: silly me indeed to think CSS attribute selectors already can do numeric comparisons! See here: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/354

my browser a few months ago. Recently I looked at the standard again, and it turns out my implementation is outdated, because there's a new type of object in the standard that must be special cased. Many similar cases; this particular one I don't mind, but it shows how hard it is to just stay fully compliant. * It's gigantic and bloated, full of things nobody ever uses. If something gets into the standard, it typically won't ever get removed, and WHATWG has operated under this policy for more than a decade. So implementing it from start to end takes way too long, and the best strategy to get something useful is to "just" implement features that websites you use will need. * Above is the WHATWG model, which applies for HTML and DOM, but not CSS. The W3C model (used in CSS) has versioning, but they broke it in a different way: there is no comprehensive "CSS 3 standard", just a bunch of modules haphazardly building on top of each other and CSS 2. Plus it's much less precise than the HTML standard, with basic parts left entirely unspecified for decades. See the table module[1], or things like this[2]. [0]: "Walking on water and developing software from a specification are easy if both are frozen." - Edward V Berard [1]: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-tables-3/ still in "not ready for implementation" limbo after years. [2]: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2452 - "resolved" by an unclear IRC log(?), but never specified to my knowledge. It's not an irrelevant edge case either, Wikipedia breaks if you get it wrong.

sers had. But the issue seems to suggest that the box tree for this case should have the inline-box as being a parent of the block-box. Which led me to another question, in that case, if I apply a border to the parent inline-level element, shouldn't it apply to the overall box that is generated (it does not)? The answer is that borders between block-boxes and inline-level boxes should not intersect but that is really difficult to derive from reading the standards alone. Anyway it was headache-inducing trying to learn the box-model pedantically :) I wish I could learn more about layout in browsers and I trying to read the code of LayoutNG in Chromium but I need more aspirin hehehe