bstr VS taffy

Libraries for a lot of this stuff exist (albeit in many cases not very mature yet):

- https://github.com/pop-os/cosmic-text does text layout (which Taffy explicitly considers out of scope)

- https://github.com/AccessKit/accesskit does accessibility

- https://github.com/servo/rust-cssparser does value-agnostic CSS parsing (it will parse the general syntax but leaves value parsing up to the user, meaning you can easily add support for whatever properties you what). Libraries like https://github.com/parcel-bundler/lightningcss implement parsing for the standard css properties.

- There are crates like https://github.com/BurntSushi/bstr and https://docs.rs/wtf8/latest/wtf8/ for working with non-unicode text

We are planning to add a C API to Taffy, but tbh I feel like C is not very good for this kind of modularised approach. You really want to be able to expose complex APIs with enforced type safety and this isn't possible with C.

As the author of bstr and also the regex implementation that bstr uses to implement word breaking, it is linear time.

NSFL: https://github.com/BurntSushi/bstr/blob/86947727666d7b21c97e...

OsStr uses WTF-8 on Windows, and just represents the raw underlying bytes on Unix.

Byte strings can be WTF-8. They can be anything. The problem is that there is no real way to (easily) get the underlying WTF-8 bytes of an OsStr on Windows. So there's no free conversion to and from byte strings.

I wrote more about this in the bstr docs (and don't miss the link to os_str_bytes): https://docs.rs/bstr/latest/bstr/#file-paths-and-os-strings

I'd be happy to answer more questions if you have them. :-) https://github.com/BurntSushi/bstr/discussions

Check out bstr, which does this exact thing for its BString and BStr types.

Currently slated for next Monday: https://github.com/BurntSushi/bstr/issues/40

This is just an FYI. I don't mean to say much to your overall point, although, as someone else who has spent a lot of time doing Unicode-y things, I do tend to agree with you. I had a very similar discussion a bit ago.[1]

Putting that aside, at least with respect to grapheme segmentation, it might be a little simpler than you think. But maybe only a little. The unicode-segmentation crate also does word segmentation, which is quite a bit more complicated than grapheme segmentation. For example, you can write a regex to parse graphemes without too much fuss[2]. (Compare that with the word segmentation regex, much to my chagrin.[3]) Once you build the regex, actually using it is basically as simple as running the regex.[4]

Sadly, not all regex engines will be able to parse that regex due to its use of somewhat obscure Unicode properties. But the Rust regex crate can. :-)

And of course, this somewhat shifts code size to heap size. So there's that too. But bottom line is, if you have a nice regex engine available to you, you can whip up a grapheme segmenter pretty quickly. And some regex engines even have grapheme segmentation built in via \X.

[1]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/aho-corasick/issues/72

[2]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/bstr/blob/e38e7a7ca986f9499b30...

[3]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/bstr/blob/e38e7a7ca986f9499b30...

[4]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/bstr/blob/e38e7a7ca986f9499b30...

This is a great idea. I realize the find implementation is not ideal and have considered bringing in an optional dependency to improve performance. I remembered bstr using two-way search, so I was wondering if depending on the full crate for searching would be worthwhile, but I see that changed. Thanks for the tip!

Fun little nit-pick that does not detract from your overall point: you can actually count graphemes with a regex and that's exactly what bstr does. :-)

I maintain a standalone web layout engine[0] (currently implementing Flexbox and CSS Grid) which has no scripting support. WPT layout tests using is a major blocker to us running WPT tests against our library. Yoga (used by React Native) is in a similar position.<p>Do you think the WPT would accept pull requests replacing such tests with equivalent tests that don't use <script> (perhaps using a build script to generate multiple tests instead - or simply writing out the tests longhand)?<p>I could run against only the ref-tests, but if I can't get full coverage then the WPT seems to provide little value over our own test suite.<p>[0]: <a href="https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy">https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy</a>

> Is there any easy to use/hack HTML layouting engine where I could experiment with custom CSS attributes and bridge that gap? Would anything from Servo be suitable?

Servo could be used for this. You'd want to add support for parsing the CSS properties themselves to the style crate in https://github.com/servo/stylo and then the layout implementation to the layout2020 crate in https://github.com/servo/servo. You do effectively get a whole browser though.

I'm currently working on building a lighter weight / hackable layout engine based on a combination of https://github.com/servo/stylo (for css parsing and selector resolution), https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy (for box-level layout) and https://github.com/pop-os/cosmic-text (for flow/inline layout). I expect to have something decent in around 6 months

Neither of these setups currently have any support for pagination though.

I maintain a web layout library that is designed to be integrated into other software:

https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy

It needs to be combined with a text layout engine (such as https://github.com/pop-os/cosmic-text), and it doesn't support everything yet (notable features that are currently missing: "float", "display: inline-block", "box-sizing: content-box", "position: static"). But we have Block, Flexbox and CSS Grid support with more on the way.

All of these projects have in common that they use Taffy (the project that I work on!) for box-level layout (which currently gives them block, flexbox, and grid layout) , and are either using or planning to use cosmic-text for text/inline layout. This gives you a decent first approximation of web layout, but it's not perfect and there are major features like float, display: inline-block, position: static, box-sizing: content-box missing. Not to mention that none of these implementations currently resolve CSS selectors, so you are effectively limited to inline styles (if you're interested in something in that direction then you may be interested in https://github.com/vizia/vizia).

While there are a lot of Rust UI frameworks, none of them are really recommended for production use yet. I suspect a few of the will die off and work will coalesce a few once things mature a bit.

Another nice feature of the Rust UI ecosystem is that lots of it is being built in a modular way. For example I maintain a layout engine [0] library which just does layout and can be easily integrated by anybody creating a UI library. And there a bunch of similar composable libraries covering rendering, text layout, accessibility, window creation, clipboard access, etc.

[0]: https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy

You might be interested in the combination of Taffy [0] which handles box-level browser layout (block, flexbox, grid, etc) and Cosmic Text [1] which handles text-level layout and basic text editing functionality.

Integrating them into browsers while retaining accessibility could be tricky. But in they're general they're relatively small standalone libraries implementing most of the layout algorithms that browsers implement (although there are currently a few key missing features like laying out "inline-block" items in line with text).

[0]: https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy

[1]: https://github.com/pop-os/cosmic-text

I maintain a library (https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy) that implements both Flexbox and CSS Grid, and is designed to be easily embedded (similar to Yoga, which Ink is using).

https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy (disclaimer: I work on this crate) which does CSS layout given CSS styles. This would probably be much more useful once we merge support for display: block (https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy/pull/474), and if in the future we support display: table. Taffy doesn't handle text layout but is designed to integrate nicely with external layout systems.

Ok, "1.4GB" made me look into this more. I hadn't realised that we were using a "superlinter" action that includes linters for over 10 languages. Switching to a different github action brought to time down to 3 seconds! https://github.com/DioxusLabs/taffy/pull/463