Unprefix Flexbox

Unprefix Flexbox

This is spec'd by the W3C in http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox/ and is at the
CR stage. Firefox will ship this spec unprefixed in version 22.

We will keep the -webkit- prefixed properties for backwards
compatibility with existing content, at least for now.

Intent to ship thread:
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/blink-dev/YJd-kkDYtiw

R=jchaffraix@chromium.org
BUG=249111
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/blink?view=rev&revision=153078

[abarth-chromium, 2013-06-12 23:27:29]

Can you add some more information to your description?  Maybe copy/paste a bit
from your blink-dev email?

[cbiesinger, 2013-06-12 23:33:29]

On 2013/06/12 23:27:29, abarth wrote:
> Can you add some more information to your description?  Maybe copy/paste a bit
> from your blink-dev email?

Done

[abarth-chromium, 2013-06-12 23:35:14]

Thanks!

[Julien - ping for review, 2013-06-13 17:10:59]

lgtm

AFAICT you are missing quite a lot of prefixed properties in
LayoutTests/css3/flexbox/ that we will need to address (either in this patch or
a follow-up)

https://codereview.chromium.org/15758002/diff/8001/Source/core/css/CSSPropert...
File Source/core/css/CSSPropertyNames.in (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/15758002/diff/8001/Source/core/css/CSSPropert...
Source/core/css/CSSPropertyNames.in:269: -webkit-align-content
alias_for=align-content
It's unfortunate that because the 2 properties are aliases of each others, we
won't be able to differentiate between prefixed vs unprefixed use as we will
want to remove the alias at some point. That's a broader issue unfortunately so
it shouldn't block your change.

https://codereview.chromium.org/15758002/diff/8001/Source/core/page/animation...
File Source/core/page/animation/CSSPropertyAnimation.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/15758002/diff/8001/Source/core/page/animation...
Source/core/page/animation/CSSPropertyAnimation.cpp:914: PropertyWrapperFlex() :
AnimationPropertyWrapperBase(CSSPropertyFlex)
Interesting, I would have expected this to be style violation as the
initialization should be on its own line. How about we fix this while touching
this code?

[cbiesinger, 2013-06-13 20:21:43]

Was planning to update the tests in a followup. In this CL, I only changed the
tests that were failing.

https://codereview.chromium.org/15758002/diff/8001/Source/core/css/CSSPropert...
File Source/core/css/CSSPropertyNames.in (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/15758002/diff/8001/Source/core/css/CSSPropert...
Source/core/css/CSSPropertyNames.in:269: -webkit-align-content
alias_for=align-content
On 2013/06/13 17:10:59, Julien Chaffraix wrote:
> It's unfortunate that because the 2 properties are aliases of each others, we
> won't be able to differentiate between prefixed vs unprefixed use as we will
> want to remove the alias at some point. That's a broader issue unfortunately
so
> it shouldn't block your change.

Yeah, I have no good solution for that :(

https://codereview.chromium.org/15758002/diff/8001/Source/core/page/animation...
File Source/core/page/animation/CSSPropertyAnimation.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/15758002/diff/8001/Source/core/page/animation...
Source/core/page/animation/CSSPropertyAnimation.cpp:914: PropertyWrapperFlex() :
AnimationPropertyWrapperBase(CSSPropertyFlex)
On 2013/06/13 17:10:59, Julien Chaffraix wrote:
> Interesting, I would have expected this to be style violation as the
> initialization should be on its own line. How about we fix this while touching
> this code?

Done.

[ojan, 2013-06-13 20:31:55]

I think we should at least start the discussion on www-style about the alignment
properties before unprefixing them. I think it's fine to move forward with this
patch, but it'd be good to get input from the CSS working group and other
browser vendors about how they feel about the stability of the alignment
properties and shipping a partial implementation unprefixed.

[cbiesinger, 2013-06-13 20:44:33]

On 2013/06/13 20:31:55, ojan wrote:
> I think we should at least start the discussion on www-style about the
alignment
> properties before unprefixing them. I think it's fine to move forward with
this
> patch, but it'd be good to get input from the CSS working group and other
> browser vendors about how they feel about the stability of the alignment
> properties and shipping a partial implementation unprefixed.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jun/0255.html

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-25 21:58:42]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/cbiesinger@chromium.org/15758002/29001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-25 22:06:50]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/cbiesinger@chromium.org/15758002/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-26 01:28:08]

Retried try job too often on blink_presubmit for step(s) presubmit
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=blink_pres...

[cbiesinger, 2013-06-26 16:50:57]

Committed patchset #10 manually as r153078 (presubmit successful).