mirror of
https://github.com/rkd77/elinks.git
synced 2024-11-04 08:17:17 -05:00
.. | ||
apply.c | ||
apply.h | ||
css.c | ||
css.h | ||
Makefile | ||
parser.c | ||
parser.h | ||
property.c | ||
property.h | ||
README | ||
scanner.c | ||
scanner.h | ||
stylesheet.c | ||
stylesheet.h | ||
value.c | ||
value.h |
This is a super-simplistic CSS micro-engine. Phases The CSS handling is divided into: * The scanner It takes care of composing tokens from a string containing CSS source. It also takes care of eliminating either garbage code that was not recognized or things like whitespace and comments. The scanner will not attempt to recover from this garbage code but merely signal them to the upper layers. The scanner only works with strings but is a bit more high level than scanners in the sense of flex. The string "10em" will not just generate the two tokens <number>, <identifier> but rather combine them into one token. This only leads to problems with tokens of the sort #<identifier> that can be both a hex color or hash so should not be a problem but rather mean that we will do less scanner calls. The scanner lives in scanner.* * The parser It takes a string with CSS code, composes tokens (from the scanner) into some meaningful syntax and transforms it to an internal set of structures describing the data (let's call it a "rawer"). It currently does no recovery when something unexpected shows up but skips to next special control char. The parser lives in parser.* and value.* * The applier It applies style info from a syntax tree (parsed ELinks or document stylesheet) or fragment of one (in the case of style="" attributes) to the current element. The applier lives in apply.* The current state Currently we both check the element's 'style' attribute, content of <style> tags and imports from either <link> tags in the HTML header or @imports from the CSS code. But we lack a proper way to handle the cascading. Now it will automatically scan the current element, and if a 'style' attribute is found, it is parsed and applied to the current element. If there is no 'style' attribute it will look up any styles retrieved from the document stylesheet and last try styles from the default user controlled stylesheet. TODO: We should always look up <style> tags and only apply those not found in any 'style' attribute. One big problem with the current way of doing things is inheritance, there is no way we are telling the HTML engine what is going to be inherited and what is not. The other problem is precedence, currently even global stylesheet takes precedence over local classic-formatting attributes (we just css_apply() like mad on various places to make sure the CSS attributes are stuffed through HTML engine's throat). These two problems will be solved when the HTML engine is converted to work with stylesheets natively (instead of format + par_format). The selectors tree In order to handle any non-trivial selectors, we need them to form a certain structure. A hierarchical one was chosen, where we initially focus on a the most specific element, then we build the way down through ids, classes and pseudo-classes and then back the way up through parent elements. Assume two statements: "div#foo p a>b i:baz { color: black; }" and "div#foo.bar p a>b i:baz { text-decoration: underline; }". The tree we build up is: element[i] | (pseudo_classes) pseudo_class[baz] | (ancestors) element[b] | (parents) element[a] | (ancestors) element[p] | (ancestors) element[div] | (ids) id[foo] -> (color: black) | (classes) class[bar] -> (text-decoration: underline) As you can see, the combinators hierarchy is reverse, while the other selectors hierarchy is as usual. This is to aid the applier, it goes from the general to the specific (that's how it is from the POV of applying stuff to single elements, even though the ancestors are more "general" from the POV of the document stucture). This approach has its deficiencies as well (it can be expensive to match long complex combinators since we need to walk through the ancestry each time we match an element, or even more frequently when we consider the element with varied specificities ("i", "i#x", "i:baz", "i#x:baz")) but it still looks like the best way (because of the varied specificities, you can't well go the other way by narrowing down the selectors as you descend the elements tree). Let's close the discourse by adding another two selectors to the stylesheet: "b i#x:baz { color: blue; }" and "a>b#foo i:baz { background: white; }". element[i] -------------. | (pseudo_classes) | (ids) pseudo_class[baz] id[x] | (ancestors) | (pseudo_classes) .------------ element[b] pseudo_class[baz] | (ids) | (parents) | (ancestors) id[foo] element[a] element[b] -> (color: blue) | (parents) | (ancestors) element[a] element[p] -> (b: w) | (ancestors) element[div] | (ids) id[foo] -> (color: black) | (classes) class[bar] -> (text-decoration: underline) As you can see a tiny alternation of specificity at the top of the tree will duplicate the whole path of combinators, but you can't get away without that, I think. You can get probably a much better overview of how it looks by #define DEBUG_CSS at the top of src/document/css/stylesheet.h, recompiling and then grabbing a dumped stylesheet tree from stderr. Translate the 'type' and 'rel' fields from numbers to actual values accordingly to the enums in the aforementioned header file. The future of selectors XXX: I keep this here only for a historical reference now. The order matters, the connecting lines probably not. --pasky Specificity 111 a#id.nav . | . .---'---. . V | 101 a#id | . | | . | | . | | 13 | | div p a.nav . | | | . | | .--------------'| . | | V | 12 | | p a.nav | . | | | | . | `-.---------' | . | V | 11 | a.nav | . | | | . | | | . | | | 2 | | p a | . | | | | . `---------`-.---'---. | . V V | 1 a p img div . | | | | . `-------+---+---+-------' . V 0 * (universal selector)