On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 3:37 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Friday, March 6, 2026 at 6:42:41 PM UTC+1 Ian Kilpatrick wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 9:38 AM Ian Kilpatrick <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hmm... this is pretty fragile, e.g. you are missing the interleaving that > occurs for anchor-positioning for example. > https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/core/css/style_engine.cc;l=3896;drc=4ae3a738cbcbfb87d2bf747e530650484e448361;bpv=1;bpt=1 > > > Fair. Does that mean that these style and layout calcs are not accounted for > in the current probes? are they accounted from in the current LoAF > implementation?
Currently, LoAF cares about two things: - The "lifecycle" style-and-layout timestamp, which is a well defined time within the rendering cycle, regardless of whether more style/layout happens afterwards. - Forced style and layout, as one bucket, when called from a JS method that needs a synchronous result that depends on up to date values. Where I would draw the line between style and layout depends on whether the methods would be called for `getComputedStyle()` or only if a measurement like `offsetLeft` is required. I don't know what the answer for that when anchor position fallbacks are used. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAJn%3DMYaGWOQje_Ejf8QjtjGrAJhU2sZQnbrQmD1Kib9AUAUdqA%40mail.gmail.com.
