Index: Source/core/dom/DocumentStyleSheetCollection.cpp |
diff --git a/Source/core/dom/DocumentStyleSheetCollection.cpp b/Source/core/dom/DocumentStyleSheetCollection.cpp |
index 944213825715afa717a5b62a35c8e167f44aaf54..43743fd4f92759d5a16c369944befd10e50970bc 100644 |
--- a/Source/core/dom/DocumentStyleSheetCollection.cpp |
+++ b/Source/core/dom/DocumentStyleSheetCollection.cpp |
@@ -164,23 +164,19 @@ bool DocumentStyleSheetCollection::updateActiveStyleSheets(StyleEngine* engine, |
if (change.styleResolverUpdateType == Reconstruct) { |
engine->clearMasterResolver(); |
- engine->resetFontSelector(); |
ojan
2013/12/18 00:20:02
Is removing this line correct? In the reconstruct
tasak
2013/12/18 05:12:23
You are right.
If StyleFontFaceRule is updated by
|
} else if (StyleResolver* styleResolver = engine->resolver()) { |
// FIXME: We might have already had styles in child treescope. In this case, we cannot use buildScopedStyleTreeInDocumentOrder. |
// Need to change "false" to some valid condition. |
styleResolver->setBuildScopedStyleTreeInDocumentOrder(false); |
if (change.styleResolverUpdateType != Additive) { |
- ASSERT(change.styleResolverUpdateType == Reset || change.styleResolverUpdateType == ResetStyleResolverAndFontSelector); |
+ ASSERT(change.styleResolverUpdateType == Reset); |
resetAllRuleSetsInTreeScope(styleResolver); |
- if (change.styleResolverUpdateType == ResetStyleResolverAndFontSelector) |
- engine->resetFontSelector(); |
+ engine->removeFontFaceRules(change.fontFaceRulesToRemove); |
styleResolver->removePendingAuthorStyleSheets(m_activeAuthorStyleSheets); |
styleResolver->lazyAppendAuthorStyleSheets(0, collection.activeAuthorStyleSheets()); |
} else { |
styleResolver->lazyAppendAuthorStyleSheets(m_activeAuthorStyleSheets.size(), collection.activeAuthorStyleSheets()); |
} |
- } else if (change.styleResolverUpdateType == ResetStyleResolverAndFontSelector) { |
- engine->resetFontSelector(); |
} |
m_scopingNodesForStyleScoped.didRemoveScopingNodes(); |
collection.swap(*this); |