Re: [webkit-dev] Question regarding priorities of subresource content retrieval
This argument - web developer is to blame for choosing a slow ad/tracking/etc server - is incorrect. Web developers in general do not have any control over the ad provider or, frankly, any other type of external functionality provider. Google Analytics being a good point in case, you would not want most of the world's web pages to suddenly hang if something happens inside Google. The web browser should clearly prioritize developer-controllable resources over ones that are beyond web developer's control. Also, as an application run by the user and not by the developer, the browser should arguably prioritize actual content against pseudo-content which purpose is functionality that is not visibile to the actual user, such as ad/tracker scripts. This actual content has higher probability to be important when sourced from the domain/subdomain of the webpage itself, based on current trends. Domain check is a reasonable approximation that fits both purposes. -- silvio On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Jerry Seeger vikin...@mac.com wrote: I'm reasonably sure that javascript in the header must be loaded synchronously, as it might affect the rest of the load. This is why tools like YSlow advise Web designers to move javascript loads that are not needed for rendering until after the rest of the page loads. Blocking on loading the css is less clear-cut, as in some cases it could mean several seconds of ugly page. I don't know if it's right or wrong, but a lot of pages out there rely on the CSS being loaded before the page starts to render to avoid terrible layout and the appearance of items meant to be hidden for the seconds it takes the css to load. In general, while things could certainly be improved, it's up to the owner of the page to not rely on a a slow ad server, or build the page so the ads load after the primary content. Jerry Seeger On Feb 7, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Silvio Ventres wrote: IE/Opera are delaying only for 4 seconds, same as Mobile Safari The reason looks to be the url for the script/css. If the url is the same twice, Chrome/Firefox serializes the requests, while IE/Opera/MobileSafari launches both requests simultaneously. Of course, requesting simultaneously doesn't fix anything, as you can see by trying a link-stuffed version at http://solid.eqoppa.com/testlag2.html This one has 45 css and 38 javascript links. It hangs all browsers nicely. The main point here is that it might be acceptable if it's coming from the webpage domain itself. But the links are coming from a completely different place. This is exactly what makes browsing pages with any third-party analytics, tracking or ad addons so slow and frustrating. Fixing priorities in subresource download should make experience considerably more interactive and fun. -- silvio ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Question regarding priorities of subresource content retrieval
Your test case isn't really about prioritization. The HTML5 spec defines very specifically when parsing must stop. The two main cases are: 1. Waiting for an external script to download 2. Waiting for an external stylesheet to download when any script block is reached In these cases, the parser does not continue parsing the document to discover new subresources to download. However, as an optimization, the PreloadScanner speculatively scans the source (which it is not allowed to parse yet) for any subresources which should probably be downloaded. This way when parsing does continue the resources are already available or at least have a head start. So if we aren't able to scan ahead and at least discover these resources, prioritization is moot. Now, assume we have discovered all subresources on the page and could prioritize them altogether. I'm still not sure I'd buy your argument about resources from another domain being less important. Many sites use CDNs on different domains to download resources. Also, many sites include their JS libraries from common locations. In either of those cases, another domain could be holding the critical blocking resource. Perhaps it is worth experimenting with the heuristic you suggest, but I certainly don't think we can just assert that is the case. On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Silvio Ventres silvio.vent...@gmail.com wrote: This argument - web developer is to blame for choosing a slow ad/tracking/etc server - is incorrect. Web developers in general do not have any control over the ad provider or, frankly, any other type of external functionality provider. Google Analytics being a good point in case, you would not want most of the world's web pages to suddenly hang if something happens inside Google. The web browser should clearly prioritize developer-controllable resources over ones that are beyond web developer's control. Also, as an application run by the user and not by the developer, the browser should arguably prioritize actual content against pseudo-content which purpose is functionality that is not visibile to the actual user, such as ad/tracker scripts. This actual content has higher probability to be important when sourced from the domain/subdomain of the webpage itself, based on current trends. Domain check is a reasonable approximation that fits both purposes. -- silvio On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Jerry Seeger vikin...@mac.com wrote: I'm reasonably sure that javascript in the header must be loaded synchronously, as it might affect the rest of the load. This is why tools like YSlow advise Web designers to move javascript loads that are not needed for rendering until after the rest of the page loads. Blocking on loading the css is less clear-cut, as in some cases it could mean several seconds of ugly page. I don't know if it's right or wrong, but a lot of pages out there rely on the CSS being loaded before the page starts to render to avoid terrible layout and the appearance of items meant to be hidden for the seconds it takes the css to load. In general, while things could certainly be improved, it's up to the owner of the page to not rely on a a slow ad server, or build the page so the ads load after the primary content. Jerry Seeger On Feb 7, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Silvio Ventres wrote: IE/Opera are delaying only for 4 seconds, same as Mobile Safari The reason looks to be the url for the script/css. If the url is the same twice, Chrome/Firefox serializes the requests, while IE/Opera/MobileSafari launches both requests simultaneously. Of course, requesting simultaneously doesn't fix anything, as you can see by trying a link-stuffed version at http://solid.eqoppa.com/testlag2.html This one has 45 css and 38 javascript links. It hangs all browsers nicely. The main point here is that it might be acceptable if it's coming from the webpage domain itself. But the links are coming from a completely different place. This is exactly what makes browsing pages with any third-party analytics, tracking or ad addons so slow and frustrating. Fixing priorities in subresource download should make experience considerably more interactive and fun. -- silvio ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Question regarding priorities of subresource content retrieval
My argument is less it's the Web developer's fault than it is the Web developer should have control. I am hardly a sophisticated Web developer but I have javascript from a different domain that must be loaded first and I have Google analytics, which I should load after the rest of the page (though to be honest I'm not sure I do after my redesign... hm). While I would love it if there were standardized rules for which scripts would be loaded synchronously and which wouldn't, I would hate it if one browser required me to move my scripts to a different domain. Having said all that, I hate it when I have to wait for a resource out outside of my control, so I'd love to see a solution to this. If there were a more reliable way than simple domain checking to prioritize content, that would be fantastic. I think ideally this is something for the standards board - perhaps an extension of the script and link tags to specify a priority, or something like that. Jerry On Feb 8, 2011, at 2:23 AM, Silvio Ventres wrote: This argument - web developer is to blame for choosing a slow ad/tracking/etc server - is incorrect. Web developers in general do not have any control over the ad provider or, frankly, any other type of external functionality provider. Google Analytics being a good point in case, you would not want most of the world's web pages to suddenly hang if something happens inside Google. The web browser should clearly prioritize developer-controllable resources over ones that are beyond web developer's control. Also, as an application run by the user and not by the developer, the browser should arguably prioritize actual content against pseudo-content which purpose is functionality that is not visibile to the actual user, such as ad/tracker scripts. This actual content has higher probability to be important when sourced from the domain/subdomain of the webpage itself, based on current trends. Domain check is a reasonable approximation that fits both purposes. -- silvio On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Jerry Seeger vikin...@mac.com wrote: I'm reasonably sure that javascript in the header must be loaded synchronously, as it might affect the rest of the load. This is why tools like YSlow advise Web designers to move javascript loads that are not needed for rendering until after the rest of the page loads. Blocking on loading the css is less clear-cut, as in some cases it could mean several seconds of ugly page. I don't know if it's right or wrong, but a lot of pages out there rely on the CSS being loaded before the page starts to render to avoid terrible layout and the appearance of items meant to be hidden for the seconds it takes the css to load. In general, while things could certainly be improved, it's up to the owner of the page to not rely on a a slow ad server, or build the page so the ads load after the primary content. Jerry Seeger On Feb 7, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Silvio Ventres wrote: IE/Opera are delaying only for 4 seconds, same as Mobile Safari The reason looks to be the url for the script/css. If the url is the same twice, Chrome/Firefox serializes the requests, while IE/Opera/MobileSafari launches both requests simultaneously. Of course, requesting simultaneously doesn't fix anything, as you can see by trying a link-stuffed version at http://solid.eqoppa.com/testlag2.html This one has 45 css and 38 javascript links. It hangs all browsers nicely. The main point here is that it might be acceptable if it's coming from the webpage domain itself. But the links are coming from a completely different place. This is exactly what makes browsing pages with any third-party analytics, tracking or ad addons so slow and frustrating. Fixing priorities in subresource download should make experience considerably more interactive and fun. -- silvio ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
Re: [webkit-dev] Question regarding priorities of subresource content retrieval
Do you have any example of scripts or css that are externally sourced, and where developer cares to reasonably optimize the web page? The main use case of such external scripts currently is ads and statistics gatherers for analysis. This, arguably, is not critical content that the user is interested in. If your argument is indeed Web developer should have control, then, when you have no choice but including external scripts (ads, f.e.), you would probably hate those to break the latency of your website. If you are talking about the http://muddledramblings.com/ website, for example, you can clearly see that most scripts there are domain-internal. Do you deem your user experience more or less important than Google Analytics capability ? If Google Analytics hangs, for example, for 4 seconds, would you like the user to wait, or start reading while it loads? A change to HTML standard might be a good idea, though the problem here is that there are millions of pages on the 'net already, and the developers won't suddenly start changing them. This heuristic will allow the users to view 90% of the current Web more interactively. Keep in mind that at least 38% of all statistics is taken out of thin air :), but, really, please, show at least two pages which this heuristic will NOT work on. -- silvio On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Jerry Seeger vikin...@mac.com wrote: My argument is less it's the Web developer's fault than it is the Web developer should have control. I am hardly a sophisticated Web developer but I have javascript from a different domain that must be loaded first and I have Google analytics, which I should load after the rest of the page (though to be honest I'm not sure I do after my redesign... hm). While I would love it if there were standardized rules for which scripts would be loaded synchronously and which wouldn't, I would hate it if one browser required me to move my scripts to a different domain. Having said all that, I hate it when I have to wait for a resource out outside of my control, so I'd love to see a solution to this. If there were a more reliable way than simple domain checking to prioritize content, that would be fantastic. I think ideally this is something for the standards board - perhaps an extension of the script and link tags to specify a priority, or something like that. Jerry On Feb 8, 2011, at 2:23 AM, Silvio Ventres wrote: This argument - web developer is to blame for choosing a slow ad/tracking/etc server - is incorrect. Web developers in general do not have any control over the ad provider or, frankly, any other type of external functionality provider. Google Analytics being a good point in case, you would not want most of the world's web pages to suddenly hang if something happens inside Google. The web browser should clearly prioritize developer-controllable resources over ones that are beyond web developer's control. Also, as an application run by the user and not by the developer, the browser should arguably prioritize actual content against pseudo-content which purpose is functionality that is not visibile to the actual user, such as ad/tracker scripts. This actual content has higher probability to be important when sourced from the domain/subdomain of the webpage itself, based on current trends. Domain check is a reasonable approximation that fits both purposes. -- silvio On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Jerry Seeger vikin...@mac.com wrote: I'm reasonably sure that javascript in the header must be loaded synchronously, as it might affect the rest of the load. This is why tools like YSlow advise Web designers to move javascript loads that are not needed for rendering until after the rest of the page loads. Blocking on loading the css is less clear-cut, as in some cases it could mean several seconds of ugly page. I don't know if it's right or wrong, but a lot of pages out there rely on the CSS being loaded before the page starts to render to avoid terrible layout and the appearance of items meant to be hidden for the seconds it takes the css to load. In general, while things could certainly be improved, it's up to the owner of the page to not rely on a a slow ad server, or build the page so the ads load after the primary content. Jerry Seeger On Feb 7, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Silvio Ventres wrote: IE/Opera are delaying only for 4 seconds, same as Mobile Safari The reason looks to be the url for the script/css. If the url is the same twice, Chrome/Firefox serializes the requests, while IE/Opera/MobileSafari launches both requests simultaneously. Of course, requesting simultaneously doesn't fix anything, as you can see by trying a link-stuffed version at http://solid.eqoppa.com/testlag2.html This one has 45 css and 38 javascript links. It hangs all browsers nicely. The main point here is that it might be acceptable if it's coming from the webpage domain itself. But the
Re: [webkit-dev] Question regarding priorities of subresource content retrieval
Indeed, the test case just shows the general problem. It should be changed to include scripts/css sourced from different places: same-subdomain, same-domain, cross-domain, CDN. Of course, right now there will be no difference between those. The bug you filed considers the same problem from another angle. The only difference is that the domain heuristic might fix the problem for most of the webpages. So even if Google decides one day to delay all requests to Doubleclick ads by 4 seconds, all the web won't hang. Regarding CDNs, as said before, these can be whitelisted, or left alone. Currently, both the domain-internal render-critical scripts, CDN scripts as well as external nonimportant scripts are loaded at same priority. You give priority to domain-internal render-critical scripts. This covers most of the page content. Even if the CDN scripts are not given priority, the user experience is _still_ better. In addition, now the web developer does not need to be afraid of the CDN script slowing down his webpage, so he has _more_ incentive to use it. Maybe a timer should be added and low-priority resources given specific time to complete after the high-priority resources are loaded: 100-200msec. If an external resource is served fast enough (CDN-based, f.e.) it should be loaded by that time. If it's not fast enough, why make the user wait ? Basically, it's the question of preference: would you like the user to wait on something that you cannot control? You mentioned that the parser stops when encountering a linked script/stylesheet reference. Can this be overriden? Maybe move the external-domain scripts/css to the end of html? That should be able to be tested by a browser extension. Will look into it. -- silvio On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Tony Gentilcore to...@chromium.org wrote: Your test case isn't really about prioritization. The HTML5 spec defines very specifically when parsing must stop. The two main cases are: 1. Waiting for an external script to download 2. Waiting for an external stylesheet to download when any script block is reached In these cases, the parser does not continue parsing the document to discover new subresources to download. However, as an optimization, the PreloadScanner speculatively scans the source (which it is not allowed to parse yet) for any subresources which should probably be downloaded. This way when parsing does continue the resources are already available or at least have a head start. So if we aren't able to scan ahead and at least discover these resources, prioritization is moot. Now, assume we have discovered all subresources on the page and could prioritize them altogether. I'm still not sure I'd buy your argument about resources from another domain being less important. Many sites use CDNs on different domains to download resources. Also, many sites include their JS libraries from common locations. In either of those cases, another domain could be holding the critical blocking resource. Perhaps it is worth experimenting with the heuristic you suggest, but I certainly don't think we can just assert that is the case. On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Silvio Ventres silvio.vent...@gmail.com wrote: This argument - web developer is to blame for choosing a slow ad/tracking/etc server - is incorrect. Web developers in general do not have any control over the ad provider or, frankly, any other type of external functionality provider. Google Analytics being a good point in case, you would not want most of the world's web pages to suddenly hang if something happens inside Google. The web browser should clearly prioritize developer-controllable resources over ones that are beyond web developer's control. Also, as an application run by the user and not by the developer, the browser should arguably prioritize actual content against pseudo-content which purpose is functionality that is not visibile to the actual user, such as ad/tracker scripts. This actual content has higher probability to be important when sourced from the domain/subdomain of the webpage itself, based on current trends. Domain check is a reasonable approximation that fits both purposes. -- silvio On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Jerry Seeger vikin...@mac.com wrote: I'm reasonably sure that javascript in the header must be loaded synchronously, as it might affect the rest of the load. This is why tools like YSlow advise Web designers to move javascript loads that are not needed for rendering until after the rest of the page loads. Blocking on loading the css is less clear-cut, as in some cases it could mean several seconds of ugly page. I don't know if it's right or wrong, but a lot of pages out there rely on the CSS being loaded before the page starts to render to avoid terrible layout and the appearance of items meant to be hidden for the seconds it takes the css to load. In general, while things could certainly be improved, it's
Re: [webkit-dev] Question regarding priorities of subresource content retrieval
I'm still fiddling with the scripts on muddledramblings.com after a redesign, but I intend to move static resources to a cookieless domain to improve performance. This is a petty common tactic - sort of a poor man's CDN. The key is that I can decide to do this. (Yes, I could rearrange my site and use www.muddledramblings.com and cookieless.muddledramblings.com, but you're making me do things a different way to support one Web browser.) (On a side note, muddledramblings.com's biggest performance problem right now is the host. Don't use iPage. /rant) Keep in mind that scripts not executing when expected can totally break a site, not just make it less pleasant. A script that generates content must be executed in a predictable fashion no matter where it came from. Long ago I had a moon phase widget that generated content, and raised hell on browsers that did not block correctly when the script loaded. (I once had a widget with a script that generated a script. The results were... inconsistent.) These days all browsers block correctly and the Web is a better place for it. I can't see telling Web designers, If your script uses document.write, it must come from the same domain or a known whitelist. (And let's hope the latency of the whitelist server is really low.) I can't see telling Joe Blogger why the visitor counter in his sidebar now writes the number at the bottom of the page. The WordPress plugin W3 Super Cache includes features to automate moving static content (including scripts) to a separate, cookieless domain. A lot of people use the plugin, but I can't speak to how many use the pseudo-cdn feature. My guess is not that many, but the ones who do will expect their scripts to execute where encountered, before the rest of the page loads, as mandated by the standards. The Web designer can already cause javascripts to load after the rest of the page (the above plugin automates this as well). Were I to run ads, you can bet that those scripts would not be loaded in the header (well, if I weren't lazy you could bet it). If I'm not already loading Google analytics late, it's because I haven't finished getting my script strategy finalized. While I would certainly like to see an automated mechanism for setting external resource priority, allowing me to continue in my lazy ways and not pay a performance price, (and make the Web more responsive in general, since most of us are lazy), simple domain check is not adequate when it comes to scripts. I wish I could think of an automated way to augment using the domain, but all my ideas require knowing what's in the script ahead of time (scripts that only define event handlers, for instance). Jerry Seeger On Feb 8, 2011, at 9:24 AM, Silvio Ventres wrote: Do you have any example of scripts or css that are externally sourced, and where developer cares to reasonably optimize the web page? The main use case of such external scripts currently is ads and statistics gatherers for analysis. This, arguably, is not critical content that the user is interested in. If your argument is indeed Web developer should have control, then, when you have no choice but including external scripts (ads, f.e.), you would probably hate those to break the latency of your website. If you are talking about the http://muddledramblings.com/ website, for example, you can clearly see that most scripts there are domain-internal. Do you deem your user experience more or less important than Google Analytics capability ? If Google Analytics hangs, for example, for 4 seconds, would you like the user to wait, or start reading while it loads? A change to HTML standard might be a good idea, though the problem here is that there are millions of pages on the 'net already, and the developers won't suddenly start changing them. This heuristic will allow the users to view 90% of the current Web more interactively. Keep in mind that at least 38% of all statistics is taken out of thin air :), but, really, please, show at least two pages which this heuristic will NOT work on. -- silvio On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Jerry Seeger vikin...@mac.com wrote: My argument is less it's the Web developer's fault than it is the Web developer should have control. I am hardly a sophisticated Web developer but I have javascript from a different domain that must be loaded first and I have Google analytics, which I should load after the rest of the page (though to be honest I'm not sure I do after my redesign... hm). While I would love it if there were standardized rules for which scripts would be loaded synchronously and which wouldn't, I would hate it if one browser required me to move my scripts to a different domain. Having said all that, I hate it when I have to wait for a resource out outside of my control, so I'd love to see a solution to this. If there were a more reliable way than simple domain checking to prioritize content,
Re: [webkit-dev] Question regarding priorities of subresource content retrieval
Sorry - the WordPress plugin is W3 Total Cache, not W3 Super Cache. I always get those names scrambled. Jerry On Feb 8, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Jerry Seeger wrote: I'm still fiddling with the scripts on muddledramblings.com after a redesign, but I intend to move static resources to a cookieless domain to improve performance. This is a petty common tactic - sort of a poor man's CDN. The key is that I can decide to do this. (Yes, I could rearrange my site and use www.muddledramblings.com and cookieless.muddledramblings.com, but you're making me do things a different way to support one Web browser.) (On a side note, muddledramblings.com's biggest performance problem right now is the host. Don't use iPage. /rant) Keep in mind that scripts not executing when expected can totally break a site, not just make it less pleasant. A script that generates content must be executed in a predictable fashion no matter where it came from. Long ago I had a moon phase widget that generated content, and raised hell on browsers that did not block correctly when the script loaded. (I once had a widget with a script that generated a script. The results were... inconsistent.) These days all browsers block correctly and the Web is a better place for it. I can't see telling Web designers, If your script uses document.write, it must come from the same domain or a known whitelist. (And let's hope the latency of the whitelist server is really low.) I can't see telling Joe Blogger why the visitor counter in his sidebar now writes the number at the bottom of the page. The WordPress plugin W3 Super Cache includes features to automate moving static content (including scripts) to a separate, cookieless domain. A lot of people use the plugin, but I can't speak to how many use the pseudo-cdn feature. My guess is not that many, but the ones who do will expect their scripts to execute where encountered, before the rest of the page loads, as mandated by the standards. The Web designer can already cause javascripts to load after the rest of the page (the above plugin automates this as well). Were I to run ads, you can bet that those scripts would not be loaded in the header (well, if I weren't lazy you could bet it). If I'm not already loading Google analytics late, it's because I haven't finished getting my script strategy finalized. While I would certainly like to see an automated mechanism for setting external resource priority, allowing me to continue in my lazy ways and not pay a performance price, (and make the Web more responsive in general, since most of us are lazy), simple domain check is not adequate when it comes to scripts. I wish I could think of an automated way to augment using the domain, but all my ideas require knowing what's in the script ahead of time (scripts that only define event handlers, for instance). Jerry Seeger On Feb 8, 2011, at 9:24 AM, Silvio Ventres wrote: Do you have any example of scripts or css that are externally sourced, and where developer cares to reasonably optimize the web page? The main use case of such external scripts currently is ads and statistics gatherers for analysis. This, arguably, is not critical content that the user is interested in. If your argument is indeed Web developer should have control, then, when you have no choice but including external scripts (ads, f.e.), you would probably hate those to break the latency of your website. If you are talking about the http://muddledramblings.com/ website, for example, you can clearly see that most scripts there are domain-internal. Do you deem your user experience more or less important than Google Analytics capability ? If Google Analytics hangs, for example, for 4 seconds, would you like the user to wait, or start reading while it loads? A change to HTML standard might be a good idea, though the problem here is that there are millions of pages on the 'net already, and the developers won't suddenly start changing them. This heuristic will allow the users to view 90% of the current Web more interactively. Keep in mind that at least 38% of all statistics is taken out of thin air :), but, really, please, show at least two pages which this heuristic will NOT work on. -- silvio On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Jerry Seeger vikin...@mac.com wrote: My argument is less it's the Web developer's fault than it is the Web developer should have control. I am hardly a sophisticated Web developer but I have javascript from a different domain that must be loaded first and I have Google analytics, which I should load after the rest of the page (though to be honest I'm not sure I do after my redesign... hm). While I would love it if there were standardized rules for which scripts would be loaded synchronously and which wouldn't, I would hate it if one browser required me to move my scripts to a different domain. Having said
[webkit-dev] Why does Ahem have different vertical metrics in Qt?
In an attempt to give layout tests consistent results across platforms, I ofter
use the Ahem font. However, I’ve noticed that Qt still requires
platform-specific results when I do that. One recent example is
fast/dynamic/unicode-bidi.html
$ diff -u LayoutTests/platform/qt/fast/dynamic/unicode-bidi-expected.txt
LayoutTests/fast/dynamic/unicode-bidi-expected.txt
--- LayoutTests/platform/qt/fast/dynamic/unicode-bidi-expected.txt
2011-02-03 09:02:59.0 -0800
+++ LayoutTests/fast/dynamic/unicode-bidi-expected.txt 2011-01-28
10:46:32.0 -0800
@@ -3,14 +3,14 @@
layer at (0,0) size 800x600 layerType: background only
layer at (8,8) size 100x50
RenderBlock (positioned) zI: -1 {DIV} at (8,8) size 100x50 [color=#FF]
-RenderInline {SPAN} at (0,0) size 50x49 [color=#008000]
- RenderText {#text} at (0,0) size 50x49
+RenderInline {SPAN} at (0,0) size 50x50 [color=#008000]
+ RenderText {#text} at (0,0) size 50x50
text run at (0,0) width 50: x
-RenderText zI: -1 {#text} at (50,0) size 50x49
+RenderText zI: -1 {#text} at (50,0) size 50x50
text run at (50,0) width 50: x
layer at (0,0) size 800x600 layerType: foreground only
RenderBlock {HTML} at (0,0) size 800x600
RenderBody {BODY} at (8,8) size 784x584
RenderBlock {DIV} at (0,0) size 784x50 [color=#008000]
-RenderText {#text} at (0,0) size 100x49
+RenderText {#text} at (0,0) size 100x50
text run at (0,0) width 100 RTL override: xp
Here, all the 50px Ahem text has a height of 49 pixels on Qt. The pixel
results, though, show it having the same height it does in Mac OS X (and
presumably other platforms).
What is causing this difference? How does it affect other fonts and real
websites? Is there a way to fix this?
Thanks,
—Dan___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
