Rotativa VS csswg-drafts

I've been using Rotativa[1] for URL to PDF generation which is also a wrapper for wkhtmltopdf. They have a dotnet-core[2] version and also a SaaS[3] but I think it's worth mentioning that Azure PaaS supports wkhtmltopdf natively[4] so I just self-host.

Looking at QuestPDF's API docs, it doesn't look like they support URL / HTML to PDF generation. I think this would be a great addition especially given the age and issues with Rotativa and TuesPechkin on their GitHubs.

[1] https://github.com/webgio/Rotativa

I've used numerous technologies for doing that conversion, including WebSuperGoo's ABCpdf.net, and Rotativa's free library. (We even have an article on how to use it.) The latter is still in use on some of my projects, but it—and its newer .Net Core version—is based on wkhtmltopdf.exe, which is a problem. More about that later.

For more background, and some detailed discussion of the opposite argument ("display: masonry" over "display:grid"+"grid-template-rows: masonry") see https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9041

The tracking issue: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8659

As noted there, okHSL/HSV keeps the perceptual uniformity by removing some peaks beyond the geometric limit of HSL/HSV, and it is unclear whether it is what users do expect or not.

The idea is that you should be able to set accent color via accent-color CSS property. It is discussed that there should be access to the color value of this property, e.g. via AccentColor or AccentColorText.

What do you mean by "official documentation"? The specification [1]? MDN [2]?

[1] https://drafts.csswg.org/

[2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS

The former is not meant as a learning resource for new web devs and the latter usually has information about the "baseline" support ond browser compatibility tables.

The link corresponding to the actual submission title (“CSS WG resolved to officially work on native custom functions and mixins”):

https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9350#issuecomment...

> RESOLVED: Start ED of css-mixins for CSS Custom Functions and Mixins

Recently I was reading the Learn CSS the pedantic way book and the definition for inline boxes did not match the way that anonymous block boxes were generated when an inline-level element had a block-level element as its child. So I went looking elsewhere for a more appropriate definition for that case and found this issue on standards: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1477 It was really interesting to know that I was not the only one confused. My question was: Does the inline-box generated by the inline-level element contains the box generated by the block-level child or there wasn't an inline-box that was a parent of them all but there were 2 siblings inline-level boxes of the block-level box that were wrapped in another anonymous block boxes? Reading that issue I got to know the concept of fragments, which I did not know browsers had. But the issue seems to suggest that the box tree for this case should have the inline-box as being a parent of the block-box. Which led me to another question, in that case, if I apply a border to the parent inline-level element, shouldn't it apply to the overall box that is generated (it does not)? The answer is that borders between block-boxes and inline-level boxes should not intersect but that is really difficult to derive from reading the standards alone. Anyway it was headache-inducing trying to learn the box-model pedantically :)

With all the recent CSS improvements I still miss the possibility to have working transition to "height:auto". The issue [1] on csswg-drafts is the most upvoted one. At least we can now use css grid and track sizes transitions, but it's far from intuitive, transition for "height:auto" should just work.

[1]: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/626

Masonry isn’t ready to be shipped as there are still quite a few open spec issues [^1] that need to be resolved first.

[^1]: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3...

the irc log is here: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7542#issuecomment...

i had the same reaction, it seems like a very weird syntax. but after reading the discussion i get it: you're telling a form field to behave like a normal html element, instead of behaving like a form field.