https://drafts.csswg.org/css-overflow-4/#propdef-continue:~:text=Additionally,block%20and%20the%20box%20establishes%20a%20BFC%2E says that effectively line-clamp: N should work on display: -webkit-box; boxes.
That is tested by https://searchfox.org/firefox-main/source/testing/web-platform/tests/css/css-overflow/line-clamp/line-clamp-016.html and at a glance it feels wrong. Upon more thinking, I'm assuming that that is because we want to make auto-unprefixers work? I.e. we've found some cases where pages now have:
display: -webkit-box;
-webkit-box-orient: vertical;
-webkit-line-clamp: 4;
line-clamp: 4;
Or so, and we don't want them to break when unprefixing line-clamp? If so, it'd be good to spell that out explicitly in the spec, because I wouldn't have expected it to work that way.
If not... Should we reconsider? It feels unfortunate to have a -webkit-legacy value, but make -webkit-box work in the non-legacy path too.
cc @bfgeek @frivoal @andreubotella
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-overflow-4/#propdef-continue:~:text=Additionally,block%20and%20the%20box%20establishes%20a%20BFC%2E says that effectively
line-clamp: Nshould work ondisplay: -webkit-box;boxes.That is tested by https://searchfox.org/firefox-main/source/testing/web-platform/tests/css/css-overflow/line-clamp/line-clamp-016.html and at a glance it feels wrong. Upon more thinking, I'm assuming that that is because we want to make auto-unprefixers work? I.e. we've found some cases where pages now have:
Or so, and we don't want them to break when unprefixing line-clamp? If so, it'd be good to spell that out explicitly in the spec, because I wouldn't have expected it to work that way.
If not... Should we reconsider? It feels unfortunate to have a
-webkit-legacyvalue, but make-webkit-boxwork in the non-legacy path too.cc @bfgeek @frivoal @andreubotella