The site may be gone by the time you see this, but at http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/sessions/ if you search for "AppKit" you'll find something invisible. It's part of a hidden description.
<rdar://problem/6952081>
Created attachment 31236 [details] patch
Comment on attachment 31236 [details] patch > +static inline bool fullyClipsContents(Node* node) > +{ > + RenderObject* renderer = node->renderer(); > + if (!renderer || !renderer->isBox()) > + return false; > + RenderStyle* style = renderer->style(); > + if (style->overflowX() == OVISIBLE || style->overflowY() == OVISIBLE) > + return false; > + return toRenderBox(renderer)->size().isEmpty(); > +} I know that the change log says "We can add other cases here later", but why not handle cases like "overflow-x: hidden; width: 0;" and "overflow-y: hidden; height: 0;" now? > + // Push true if this node full clips its contents, or if a parent already has fully Typo: "full clips".
(In reply to comment #3) > I know that the change log says "We can add other cases here later", but why > not handle cases like "overflow-x: hidden; width: 0;" and "overflow-y: hidden; > height: 0;" now? I tested those cases in the snippet editor, and in both cases no text was visible. That is also the rule the text iterator implements.
Comment on attachment 31236 [details] patch (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > I know that the change log says "We can add other cases here later", but why > > not handle cases like "overflow-x: hidden; width: 0;" and "overflow-y: hidden; > > height: 0;" now? > > I tested those cases in the snippet editor, and in both cases no text was > visible. That is also the rule the text iterator implements. Oh, I see: setting overflow-x to hidden sets overflow-y to something other than visible, so + if (style->overflowX() == OVISIBLE || style->overflowY() == OVISIBLE) covers this case.
(In reply to comment #5) > Oh, I see: setting overflow-x to hidden sets overflow-y to something other than > visible, so > + if (style->overflowX() == OVISIBLE || style->overflowY() == OVISIBLE) > covers this case. I guess that || should really be an && -- I'll test to make sure that works and land it that way.
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/44674
Darin, I think we may have a problem with this patch... See: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=14491
(In reply to comment #8) > Darin, I think we may have a problem with this patch. > > See: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=14491 I'd be happy to help fix it. If you can come up with a test case, feel free to put the bug in bugs.webkit.org and assign it to hem.
Filed: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26557 If you need anything more, don't hesitate to contact me.