1138384 - (enable-writing-mode-release) enable CSS writing-mode support in release channels

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: Layout, defect)

Description

[Jonathan Kew [:jfkthame]]

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1099032 +++

Bug 1099032 will enable writing-mode support by default for developer channels. We intend to hold back from enabling it on release channels until more CSS layout features are properly vertical-enabled; those bugs should block this one.

Comment 1

[Jonathan Kew [:jfkthame]]

Attachment: Enable CSS writing-mode support for all channels

Once we land the various table-layout patches that are currently in flight, I think we're in good enough shape to do this.

Comment 2

[Xidorn Quan [:xidorn] UTC+11]

What about flexbox and the underline stuff?

Comment 3

[Daniel Holbert [:dholbert]]

Flexbox is largely already logicalized, and I've got work-in-progress patches to finish it off. (once I finish with my reviews) 

(Not sure what the underline stuff is.)

Comment 4

[Xidorn Quan [:xidorn] UTC+11]

(In reply to Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] from comment #3)
> (Not sure what the underline stuff is.)

Bug 1111955. The default position of underline is not very right for Japanese. The problem is that there is a pending issue on the spec, which doesn't seem to be clear yet.

Probably that shouldn't be a blocker of this bug, since our behavior currently matches that of all other browsers. Although we probably want to fix the eventually, it could happen later.

Comment 5

[Jonathan Kew [:jfkthame]]

(In reply to Xidorn Quan [:xidorn] (UTC+12) from comment #4)
> (In reply to Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] from comment #3)
> > (Not sure what the underline stuff is.)
> 
> Bug 1111955. The default position of underline is not very right for
> Japanese. The problem is that there is a pending issue on the spec, which
> doesn't seem to be clear yet.

As an interim solution, pending spec finalization, this has been fixed in bug 1175789. So I don't think we need to block on it here.

Comment 6

[Daniel Holbert [:dholbert]]

Comment on attachment 8626600 [details] [diff] [review]
Enable CSS writing-mode support for all channels

As with all feature-enablings, we should be open to backing this out on release channels (and punting for a release), if we uncover any serious brokenness [particularly on real sites] without an easily-backportable fix.

r=me with that in mind.

Comment 7

[Jonathan Kew [:jfkthame]]

(In reply to Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] from comment #6)
> As with all feature-enablings, we should be open to backing this out on
> release channels (and punting for a release), if we uncover any serious
> brokenness [particularly on real sites] without an easily-backportable fix.

Yes, definitely.

Pushing to inbound, in the hope it'll merge to central sometime before the uplift...
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/f561d08e9077

Comment 8

[Jonathan Kew [:jfkthame]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/f561d08e9077

Comment 9

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/f561d08e9077

Comment 10

[Jean-Yves Perrier [:teoli]]

I've updated https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Releases/41#CSS
and the compat table
of the logical properties, writing-mode and text-orientation (but not text-combine-upright)

Comment 11

[Florian Bender]

Release Note Request (optional, but appreciated)
[Why is this notable]: better l10n/i18n support for the Web
[Suggested wording]: Implemented CSS3 Writing Modes
[Links (documentation, blog post, etc)]: (MDN see comment 10)

Comment 12

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

I think this should go in the documentation it's already in (comment 10), but should not be in the release notes unless we have a coherent policy for choosing which developer-facing things go in the release notes.  Instead, the release notes should point to the developer documentation that we already have and is quite thorough.

Comment 13

[Ritu Kothari (:ritu) (Inactive, please n-i to RyanVM, jcristau, or pascal)]

Since this is already in the developer notes for FF41 here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Releases/41#CSS, we do not need to add it to FF41 release notes.

Comment 14

[Daniel Holbert [:dholbert]]

I think that means this bug should be marked as "relnote-firefox:41+",though, right? (not "relnote-firefox:-)

According to [1], relnote-firefox:- means "this bug does not meet the bar for inclusion in release notes", whereas relnote-firefox:41+ would mean "Drivers have determined this bug will be included in Firefox41 release notes."  It seems like the latter is correct.

[1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/Relnotes_rules

Comment 15

[Ritu Kothari (:ritu) (Inactive, please n-i to RyanVM, jcristau, or pascal)]

(In reply to Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] from comment #14)
> I think that means this bug should be marked as
> "relnote-firefox:41+",though, right? (not "relnote-firefox:-)
> 
> According to [1], relnote-firefox:- means "this bug does not meet the bar
> for inclusion in release notes", whereas relnote-firefox:41+ would mean
> "Drivers have determined this bug will be included in Firefox41 release
> notes."  It seems like the latter is correct.
> 
> [1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/Relnotes_rules

Daniel, AFAIK, there are two different sets of release notes. 
1) https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/releases/ and, 
2) https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Releases

RelMan team (including me) work on 1) and use relnote-firefox flag to track which bug fix makes into which release version notes. The developer notes 2) are managed by MDN folks and I think they use dev-doc-needed keywords.

Comment 16

[Daniel Holbert [:dholbert]]

Thanks -- I don't think that quite addresses what I was asking. I wasn't talking about dev-doc-needed or any MDN-related stuff. I'm asking about "relnote-firefox" and making sure that "-" is actually correct here.

The Release Management wiki page that I linked to in comment 14 describes the definitions of the various "relnote-firefox" values, and it seems to differ from how you set that flag here -- if that page is no longer correct, could you or someone else update it to reflect the current semantics?  (Or, if the wiki page is indeed correct, then I think perhaps this bug should actually be "relnote-firefox:41+"?)

Comment 17

[Ritu Kothari (:ritu) (Inactive, please n-i to RyanVM, jcristau, or pascal)]

Daniel, that page was updated (revamped) about 2 months ago by me. :) I do not see the inconsistency. However, I will update that page to mention that if a note is included in MDN and also nominated for FF release notes inclusion, it will be denied and relnote-firefox will be set to "-".

Again, this bug does not meet the bar for inclusion in release notes for FF41 and therefore relnote-firefox set to "-". The reason it does not meet the bar is because we do not want to copy MDN developer notes into FF release notes. Hope that helps!

Comment 18

[Daniel Holbert [:dholbert]]

Ah, I see -- I mistook the link in comment 13 as being an actual release notes link. That makes sense now -- thanks!

> However, I will update that page to mention that
> if a note is included in MDN and also nominated for FF release notes
> inclusion, it will be denied and relnote-firefox will be set to "-".

That would be great & would help clarify this for future folks who may be confused like I was -- thanks!