Our proposed two-value syntax "text-overflow: <left> <right>" has now been added to the spec (at risk). This bug is for resurrecting the patches from bug 312156 to implement it. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-ui/#text-overflow
Created attachment 551815 [details] [diff] [review] part 1, style system David, I think you have already reviewed this once in bug 312156.
Created attachment 551816 [details] [diff] [review] part 2, layout IIRC, this was already reviewed in bug 312156 too, before we took it out.
Created attachment 551817 [details] [diff] [review] part 3, tests Reftests testing separate left/right values.
Comment on attachment 551815 [details] [diff] [review] part 1, style system >Bug 677582 - Implement CSS3 text-overflow: <left> <right>. r=dbaron Don't use the same commit message for multiple patches. Including " in the style system" before the end of the sentence would suffice in this case. nsRuleNode.cpp: >+ // text-overflow: enum, string, pair(enum|string), inherit, initial It's misleading to list enum, string twice, since they can only be in a pair. r=dbaron with that
With nits fixed: http://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/f700f4ef73b9 http://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/0f6660f35a46 http://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/1e2e4aa817cd
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/f700f4ef73b9 http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/0f6660f35a46 http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/1e2e4aa817cd
Mats, if I understand things right, spec and implementation will change very soon? I removed "dev-doc-needed" keyword to avoid wrong documentation. Please re-add here when you reopen this or add it to the new bug.
For MDN docs: Bug 684266 changed behaviour and will likely land on Mozilla 9. The relevant and implemented spec is in URL field.
I've updated https://developer.mozilla.org/en/CSS/text-overflow . It would be nice if somebody can do a technical review of it wrt this bug and bug 684266. Then I'll update Firefox 9 for developers. (and Fx10 for bug 684266)
I've gone ahead and added it to Firefox 9 for developers; more likely to get a review this way. Also added NeedsTechnicalReview to the page.