Move "opinionated" Gutenberg block styles to theme.scss #7624
Conversation
jasmussen
added
[Feature] Extensibility
|
I'm still a bit fuzzy on whether these styles are opt-in or opt-out, so please enlighten me. Noting that in Some further questions:
|
|
You opt into the theme styles with In the editor style.scss, edit.scss, and theme.scss are all used; however I believe (hope) you can dequeue them individually. In the theme only style.scss is used by default, and theme.scss is opt in. |
|
In regards the theme styles - the way I think of it, the styles should be in theme.css if they are styles that would already be styled in most existing themes. For example there should be no font declarations since they would already be set in the theme. And there should be no blockquotes since that should already be designed. Based on what you have done I would suggest:
You can always have structural bits in style.scss and visual styles in theme.scss |
It depends on the markup. Do pullquotes use alignleft and alignright? Those are required items for themes on wordpress.org so themes should already account for a lot of the positional styles. You should then move the visual styles (borders and font sizes) into theme.scss so that they don't conflict with theme defaults.
Personally I would prefer that pull quote gets removed. I'm not sure the average user will know the difference between a block quote and a pull quote.
I haven't looked at the code but I think consistency is super important.
How does a subheader differ from a heading set to h3/ h4? I don't know the answer and I'm a web designer. How will a non-webdesigner know the answer?
AFAIK Only opt in for everything currently. What styles need copying across? What styles should be opinionated on tables? Do themes not include table styles normally (mine do)?
I currently use jetpack responsive videos. Is this no longer needed? I know it's a separate topic but as a user I find it confusing that there's so many video embeds - I keep adding the video block and then remebering I have to add the Youtube block. I miss just being able to paste a video url and have it work.
Text columns should be included in style.scss since they aren't currently available. |
|
Solid feedback, Ben, thank you.
I think that's a good rule of thumb, and important to balance this given back compat with themes. This is why I'm asking on a per-block basis. I don't have strong opinions here myself, but want to make sure that any benefits Gutenberg can offer are offered. For example, I totally agree that the stock Similarly, in Gutenberg an image that is not inserted as an inline image comes with new
I agree, and this circles back to quote style variations again — a pullquote style should probably have at least some structural visuals offered, like a font size, even if a theme hasn't necessarily opted in.
The subheading block is a weirdly controversial one. I don't quite understand its purpose myself, and it seems half want it removed, while for the other half it's a make or break block. I don't have strong opinions here myself. There's a ticket somewhere discussing this. I read it as "Dr. Strangelove" being the heading, and "Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" as the subheading.
No strong opinions here. I was thinking border-width and border-collapsing. I tried to make it responsive but failed, this might come in a separate block.
Possibly?
Is this not working for you? It's working fine for me. Try pasting Thanks again Ben, I hope to address all your thoughts in this PR — possibly today, otherwise next week. We should be able to get these in 3.3. Feel free to lay other concerns on me, if there are frustrations I can address, you know where to find me. |
jasmussen
force-pushed
the
try/move-opinionated-styles
branch
from
4dde8cf to
57787fd
Compare
|
Okay @BinaryMoon, I took a stab at your feedback. Please take a look at the diff and see if you feel it addresses your thoughts. Thank you. |
|
@BinaryMoon I tried to dequeue Tried |
|
@samikeijonen If you simply don't add |
jasmussen
changed the title
|
Ticket is thoroughly squashed and rebased since the first attempt. So the diff should be easy to follow. I've also renamed the ticket to represent that this is no longer an experiment. |
|
@jasmussen |
|
Ah, understood. Yes it seems like if you intend to provide your own styles for both places, it could make sense to let you control that. However it seems like whereas these styles should be opt-in by the theme, they should be opt-out for the editor, right? |
|
@BinaryMoon Ben is there any chance you can take a look at this PR again? I know you're a busy man, but I would very much love to make the next version of Gutenberg easier for you to style. ❤️ |
|
@jasmussen - Hi Joen - I didn't realise you were waiting for me. Sorry about that. I think the changes you have suggested help quite a bit, but they're not perfect.
|
|
Thank you for the review again. I'm not waiting on you, I just appreciate your feedback as I know how deep into this you are. I will take another stab at this and fix as soon as I can. |
|
Thanks Ben. Pushed some changes:
To your questions:
No, because it's sort of a unique overlay caption style here.
The history of that decision lives in #6496. But the short of it is that when an image is resized, we use the figure element to define the width of the element so that the figcaption could have the same width as the image. However I see your point, and I will make a note to revisit this, though I'd like to do that separately.
Not entirely sure I got this, as the rule is primarily for use within the editor. Were you suggesting this rule should've been in style or theme instead?
No strong opinion here, but given this is an entirely new block (and by the way possibly one that will be removed and turned into a quote variation instead), I felt that this needed some styling in order to be a separate block at all. In this case, the font size of the body text is rather large, even if it's a stock p tag. Given that this block will likely transform into being a variation of the quote (see #5947), okay to skip on this one for now?
As is in this branch right now, every stock standard blockquote is styled by the theme. All that's left in style.css is for the "large" variation of the quote:
And even then, only the font sizes to ensure it's a variation at all. This touches sort of on an issue here — I completely understand why you as a theme developer would not want this, because I trust you to provide your own CSS for large variations. However for the millions of existing themes out there that do not provide these classes, a user will use Gutenberg to use a large variation of the quote style, and not see any change reflected in the content. What's the best solution here? For example, the separator block also just received variations:
Personally, I feel like it's a good trade-off for Gutenberg to leave the default separator and default blockquote alone, unless a theme explicitly opts into this, but leaving structural CSS for any variations offered. Or should this aspect be discussed as a separate issue? |
|
Hey Joen - this is looking a lot better to me.
I ran into this being a problem using Gutenberg on my personal site on this post. The animations in the sidebar were overlapping the content and wouldn't scale. Happy to offer feedback/ testing when you create a new ticket.
My bad. I thought the code was in theme.scss - I misread the filename.
I'm all for removing pullquote so lets ignore for now.
That is a challenging one and I totally see your point. The variations is harder to style with default themes. I wonder if the core code should be changed so that the default variants are only enabled when the default styles are opted in to? That way you can include all the variants in styles.scss and keep theme.scss clean for the rest of us (and we can include our own variants within the themes). Although that would then raise issues with portability & lock in. I hadn't seen the separator variations. That's an interesting addition. I think having variants is good - but I can't decide if having quite so many is a good thing. I can imagine this being abused. |
This adds a wrapping `aside` element to any image block that's floated left or right. From the spec, https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/grouping-content.html#the-figure-element: > For content that is only tangentially related, or that serves a separate purpose than the surrounding flow, the aside element should be used (and can itself wrap a figure). For example, a pull quote that repeats content from an article would be more appropriate in an aside than in a figure, because it isn’t part of the content, it’s a repetition of the content for the purposes of enticing readers or highlighting key topics. The above is the reasoning for using the `aside` element to wrap the figure. But why wrap the figure at all? Because due to issues surfaced in #7624 (comment), it seems our current implmeentation isn't responsive. The challenge is — what if you float a very small image to the left, and write a giant caption. Even if we apply `width: fit-content;` on the `figure`, the caption will expand the `figure` to accommodate as much text as the parent wrapping element will allow. `min-content` doesn't work either, because this will make the `figure` only as wide as the smallest word. What we have in master works in most cases, through dark magic, but it also only works because we remove the `max-width` from the nested image. This means the image won't resize with the viewport, and is therefore not responsive. I have explored so many many options for fixing this, and after all this time, what it boils down to is this: - We can either set a fixed size on floated captions, say 33%, and hope it works for the image that's floated. Not ideal, and you can see the end result here: https://codepen.io/joen/pen/wXbqwN - We can add a wrapping element around the `figure`, so that it and the `figcaption` can be sized using table rules, as in this PR. Why not just set the width on the figure element and float that? Because then we can't accommodate wide images, which rely on an unbounded main column. It's not ideal that we have to add an extra wrapping element, but it can be semantic, and it feels like the simplest to work with for themers implementing wide images coexisting with floats.
|
Let's merge then! It's definitely a step in the right direction. |
|
Just tested this again, it seems solid and harmless to me. Awaiting @karmatosed call on whether this can make the 3.2 deadline. 🤞 |
| padding: .8em 1.6em; | ||
| border: 1px solid $light-gray-500; | ||
| border-radius: 4px; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Next person to edit this file, if they're using the provided EditorConfig, will introduce a trailing new line to the file.
I'd suggest installing a plugin for your editor so we can be consistent on this:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`Д´)ﾉ︵ ┻━┻
I have ESlint installed, and it's not giving me any errors:
My apologies, and I have added the newline, and now I will not relent unless I get VSCode to behave. This is embarrasing!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Found it. Turns out that's a VSCode setting that defaults to off, which confused me because I switched from Atom where it defaults to on:
I've now fixed this, and made a backup of my user config. Sorry about that.
This PR is a followup to #7624. It adds back the caption styles for images and embeds. This is because the majority of existing themes won't have styles to accommodate the new `figcaption` markup, and are likely to be styling the WP Captions instead. For those themes, if the caption styles live in the `theme.scss` file, the captions will appear unstyled or broken. Some time in the future, this can possibly be revisited and shuffled around.
This PR is a followup to #7624. It adds back the caption styles for images and embeds. This is because the majority of existing themes won't have styles to accommodate the new `figcaption` markup, and are likely to be styling the WP Captions instead. For those themes, if the caption styles live in the `theme.scss` file, the captions will appear unstyled or broken. Some time in the future, this can possibly be revisited and shuffled around.
This adds a wrapping `aside` element to any image block that's floated left or right. From the spec, https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/grouping-content.html#the-figure-element: > For content that is only tangentially related, or that serves a separate purpose than the surrounding flow, the aside element should be used (and can itself wrap a figure). For example, a pull quote that repeats content from an article would be more appropriate in an aside than in a figure, because it isn’t part of the content, it’s a repetition of the content for the purposes of enticing readers or highlighting key topics. The above is the reasoning for using the `aside` element to wrap the figure. But why wrap the figure at all? Because due to issues surfaced in #7624 (comment), it seems our current implmeentation isn't responsive. The challenge is — what if you float a very small image to the left, and write a giant caption. Even if we apply `width: fit-content;` on the `figure`, the caption will expand the `figure` to accommodate as much text as the parent wrapping element will allow. `min-content` doesn't work either, because this will make the `figure` only as wide as the smallest word. What we have in master works in most cases, through dark magic, but it also only works because we remove the `max-width` from the nested image. This means the image won't resize with the viewport, and is therefore not responsive. I have explored so many many options for fixing this, and after all this time, what it boils down to is this: - We can either set a fixed size on floated captions, say 33%, and hope it works for the image that's floated. Not ideal, and you can see the end result here: https://codepen.io/joen/pen/wXbqwN - We can add a wrapping element around the `figure`, so that it and the `figcaption` can be sized using table rules, as in this PR. Why not just set the width on the figure element and float that? Because then we can't accommodate wide images, which rely on an unbounded main column. It's not ideal that we have to add an extra wrapping element, but it can be semantic, and it feels like the simplest to work with for themers implementing wide images coexisting with floats.
This adds a wrapping `aside` element to any image block that's floated left or right. From the spec, https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/grouping-content.html#the-figure-element: > For content that is only tangentially related, or that serves a separate purpose than the surrounding flow, the aside element should be used (and can itself wrap a figure). For example, a pull quote that repeats content from an article would be more appropriate in an aside than in a figure, because it isn’t part of the content, it’s a repetition of the content for the purposes of enticing readers or highlighting key topics. The above is the reasoning for using the `aside` element to wrap the figure. But why wrap the figure at all? Because due to issues surfaced in #7624 (comment), it seems our current implmeentation isn't responsive. The challenge is — what if you float a very small image to the left, and write a giant caption. Even if we apply `width: fit-content;` on the `figure`, the caption will expand the `figure` to accommodate as much text as the parent wrapping element will allow. `min-content` doesn't work either, because this will make the `figure` only as wide as the smallest word. What we have in master works in most cases, through dark magic, but it also only works because we remove the `max-width` from the nested image. This means the image won't resize with the viewport, and is therefore not responsive. I have explored so many many options for fixing this, and after all this time, what it boils down to is this: - We can either set a fixed size on floated captions, say 33%, and hope it works for the image that's floated. Not ideal, and you can see the end result here: https://codepen.io/joen/pen/wXbqwN - We can add a wrapping element around the `figure`, so that it and the `figcaption` can be sized using table rules, as in this PR. Why not just set the width on the figure element and float that? Because then we can't accommodate wide images, which rely on an unbounded main column. It's not ideal that we have to add an extra wrapping element, but it can be semantic, and it feels like the simplest to work with for themers implementing wide images coexisting with floats.
This adds a wrapping `aside` element to any image block that's floated left or right. From the spec, https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/grouping-content.html#the-figure-element: > For content that is only tangentially related, or that serves a separate purpose than the surrounding flow, the aside element should be used (and can itself wrap a figure). For example, a pull quote that repeats content from an article would be more appropriate in an aside than in a figure, because it isn’t part of the content, it’s a repetition of the content for the purposes of enticing readers or highlighting key topics. The above is the reasoning for using the `aside` element to wrap the figure. But why wrap the figure at all? Because due to issues surfaced in #7624 (comment), it seems our current implmeentation isn't responsive. The challenge is — what if you float a very small image to the left, and write a giant caption. Even if we apply `width: fit-content;` on the `figure`, the caption will expand the `figure` to accommodate as much text as the parent wrapping element will allow. `min-content` doesn't work either, because this will make the `figure` only as wide as the smallest word. What we have in master works in most cases, through dark magic, but it also only works because we remove the `max-width` from the nested image. This means the image won't resize with the viewport, and is therefore not responsive. I have explored so many many options for fixing this, and after all this time, what it boils down to is this: - We can either set a fixed size on floated captions, say 33%, and hope it works for the image that's floated. Not ideal, and you can see the end result here: https://codepen.io/joen/pen/wXbqwN - We can add a wrapping element around the `figure`, so that it and the `figcaption` can be sized using table rules, as in this PR. Why not just set the width on the figure element and float that? Because then we can't accommodate wide images, which rely on an unbounded main column. It's not ideal that we have to add an extra wrapping element, but it can be semantic, and it feels like the simplest to work with for themers implementing wide images coexisting with floats.
This adds a wrapping `aside` element to any image block that's floated left or right. From the spec, https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/grouping-content.html#the-figure-element: > For content that is only tangentially related, or that serves a separate purpose than the surrounding flow, the aside element should be used (and can itself wrap a figure). For example, a pull quote that repeats content from an article would be more appropriate in an aside than in a figure, because it isn’t part of the content, it’s a repetition of the content for the purposes of enticing readers or highlighting key topics. The above is the reasoning for using the `aside` element to wrap the figure. But why wrap the figure at all? Because due to issues surfaced in #7624 (comment), it seems our current implmeentation isn't responsive. The challenge is — what if you float a very small image to the left, and write a giant caption. Even if we apply `width: fit-content;` on the `figure`, the caption will expand the `figure` to accommodate as much text as the parent wrapping element will allow. `min-content` doesn't work either, because this will make the `figure` only as wide as the smallest word. What we have in master works in most cases, through dark magic, but it also only works because we remove the `max-width` from the nested image. This means the image won't resize with the viewport, and is therefore not responsive. I have explored so many many options for fixing this, and after all this time, what it boils down to is this: - We can either set a fixed size on floated captions, say 33%, and hope it works for the image that's floated. Not ideal, and you can see the end result here: https://codepen.io/joen/pen/wXbqwN - We can add a wrapping element around the `figure`, so that it and the `figcaption` can be sized using table rules, as in this PR. Why not just set the width on the figure element and float that? Because then we can't accommodate wide images, which rely on an unbounded main column. It's not ideal that we have to add an extra wrapping element, but it can be semantic, and it feels like the simplest to work with for themers implementing wide images coexisting with floats.
This adds a wrapping `aside` element to any image block that's floated left or right. From the spec, https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/grouping-content.html#the-figure-element: > For content that is only tangentially related, or that serves a separate purpose than the surrounding flow, the aside element should be used (and can itself wrap a figure). For example, a pull quote that repeats content from an article would be more appropriate in an aside than in a figure, because it isn’t part of the content, it’s a repetition of the content for the purposes of enticing readers or highlighting key topics. The above is the reasoning for using the `aside` element to wrap the figure. But why wrap the figure at all? Because due to issues surfaced in #7624 (comment), it seems our current implmeentation isn't responsive. The challenge is — what if you float a very small image to the left, and write a giant caption. Even if we apply `width: fit-content;` on the `figure`, the caption will expand the `figure` to accommodate as much text as the parent wrapping element will allow. `min-content` doesn't work either, because this will make the `figure` only as wide as the smallest word. What we have in master works in most cases, through dark magic, but it also only works because we remove the `max-width` from the nested image. This means the image won't resize with the viewport, and is therefore not responsive. I have explored so many many options for fixing this, and after all this time, what it boils down to is this: - We can either set a fixed size on floated captions, say 33%, and hope it works for the image that's floated. Not ideal, and you can see the end result here: https://codepen.io/joen/pen/wXbqwN - We can add a wrapping element around the `figure`, so that it and the `figcaption` can be sized using table rules, as in this PR. Why not just set the width on the figure element and float that? Because then we can't accommodate wide images, which rely on an unbounded main column. It's not ideal that we have to add an extra wrapping element, but it can be semantic, and it feels like the simplest to work with for themers implementing wide images coexisting with floats.
This adds a wrapping `aside` element to any image block that's floated left or right. From the spec, https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/grouping-content.html#the-figure-element: > For content that is only tangentially related, or that serves a separate purpose than the surrounding flow, the aside element should be used (and can itself wrap a figure). For example, a pull quote that repeats content from an article would be more appropriate in an aside than in a figure, because it isn’t part of the content, it’s a repetition of the content for the purposes of enticing readers or highlighting key topics. The above is the reasoning for using the `aside` element to wrap the figure. But why wrap the figure at all? Because due to issues surfaced in #7624 (comment), it seems our current implmeentation isn't responsive. The challenge is — what if you float a very small image to the left, and write a giant caption. Even if we apply `width: fit-content;` on the `figure`, the caption will expand the `figure` to accommodate as much text as the parent wrapping element will allow. `min-content` doesn't work either, because this will make the `figure` only as wide as the smallest word. What we have in master works in most cases, through dark magic, but it also only works because we remove the `max-width` from the nested image. This means the image won't resize with the viewport, and is therefore not responsive. I have explored so many many options for fixing this, and after all this time, what it boils down to is this: - We can either set a fixed size on floated captions, say 33%, and hope it works for the image that's floated. Not ideal, and you can see the end result here: https://codepen.io/joen/pen/wXbqwN - We can add a wrapping element around the `figure`, so that it and the `figcaption` can be sized using table rules, as in this PR. Why not just set the width on the figure element and float that? Because then we can't accommodate wide images, which rely on an unbounded main column. It's not ideal that we have to add an extra wrapping element, but it can be semantic, and it feels like the simplest to work with for themers implementing wide images coexisting with floats.
This adds a wrapping `aside` element to any image block that's floated left or right. From the spec, https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/grouping-content.html#the-figure-element: > For content that is only tangentially related, or that serves a separate purpose than the surrounding flow, the aside element should be used (and can itself wrap a figure). For example, a pull quote that repeats content from an article would be more appropriate in an aside than in a figure, because it isn’t part of the content, it’s a repetition of the content for the purposes of enticing readers or highlighting key topics. The above is the reasoning for using the `aside` element to wrap the figure. But why wrap the figure at all? Because due to issues surfaced in #7624 (comment), it seems our current implmeentation isn't responsive. The challenge is — what if you float a very small image to the left, and write a giant caption. Even if we apply `width: fit-content;` on the `figure`, the caption will expand the `figure` to accommodate as much text as the parent wrapping element will allow. `min-content` doesn't work either, because this will make the `figure` only as wide as the smallest word. What we have in master works in most cases, through dark magic, but it also only works because we remove the `max-width` from the nested image. This means the image won't resize with the viewport, and is therefore not responsive. I have explored so many many options for fixing this, and after all this time, what it boils down to is this: - We can either set a fixed size on floated captions, say 33%, and hope it works for the image that's floated. Not ideal, and you can see the end result here: https://codepen.io/joen/pen/wXbqwN - We can add a wrapping element around the `figure`, so that it and the `figcaption` can be sized using table rules, as in this PR. Why not just set the width on the figure element and float that? Because then we can't accommodate wide images, which rely on an unbounded main column. It's not ideal that we have to add an extra wrapping element, but it can be semantic, and it feels like the simplest to work with for themers implementing wide images coexisting with floats.
This adds a wrapping `aside` element to any image block that's floated left or right. From the spec, https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/grouping-content.html#the-figure-element: > For content that is only tangentially related, or that serves a separate purpose than the surrounding flow, the aside element should be used (and can itself wrap a figure). For example, a pull quote that repeats content from an article would be more appropriate in an aside than in a figure, because it isn’t part of the content, it’s a repetition of the content for the purposes of enticing readers or highlighting key topics. The above is the reasoning for using the `aside` element to wrap the figure. But why wrap the figure at all? Because due to issues surfaced in #7624 (comment), it seems our current implmeentation isn't responsive. The challenge is — what if you float a very small image to the left, and write a giant caption. Even if we apply `width: fit-content;` on the `figure`, the caption will expand the `figure` to accommodate as much text as the parent wrapping element will allow. `min-content` doesn't work either, because this will make the `figure` only as wide as the smallest word. What we have in master works in most cases, through dark magic, but it also only works because we remove the `max-width` from the nested image. This means the image won't resize with the viewport, and is therefore not responsive. I have explored so many many options for fixing this, and after all this time, what it boils down to is this: - We can either set a fixed size on floated captions, say 33%, and hope it works for the image that's floated. Not ideal, and you can see the end result here: https://codepen.io/joen/pen/wXbqwN - We can add a wrapping element around the `figure`, so that it and the `figcaption` can be sized using table rules, as in this PR. Why not just set the width on the figure element and float that? Because then we can't accommodate wide images, which rely on an unbounded main column. It's not ideal that we have to add an extra wrapping element, but it can be semantic, and it feels like the simplest to work with for themers implementing wide images coexisting with floats.
This adds a wrapping `aside` element to any image block that's floated left or right. From the spec, https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/grouping-content.html#the-figure-element: > For content that is only tangentially related, or that serves a separate purpose than the surrounding flow, the aside element should be used (and can itself wrap a figure). For example, a pull quote that repeats content from an article would be more appropriate in an aside than in a figure, because it isn’t part of the content, it’s a repetition of the content for the purposes of enticing readers or highlighting key topics. The above is the reasoning for using the `aside` element to wrap the figure. But why wrap the figure at all? Because due to issues surfaced in #7624 (comment), it seems our current implmeentation isn't responsive. The challenge is — what if you float a very small image to the left, and write a giant caption. Even if we apply `width: fit-content;` on the `figure`, the caption will expand the `figure` to accommodate as much text as the parent wrapping element will allow. `min-content` doesn't work either, because this will make the `figure` only as wide as the smallest word. What we have in master works in most cases, through dark magic, but it also only works because we remove the `max-width` from the nested image. This means the image won't resize with the viewport, and is therefore not responsive. I have explored so many many options for fixing this, and after all this time, what it boils down to is this: - We can either set a fixed size on floated captions, say 33%, and hope it works for the image that's floated. Not ideal, and you can see the end result here: https://codepen.io/joen/pen/wXbqwN - We can add a wrapping element around the `figure`, so that it and the `figcaption` can be sized using table rules, as in this PR. Why not just set the width on the figure element and float that? Because then we can't accommodate wide images, which rely on an unbounded main column. It's not ideal that we have to add an extra wrapping element, but it can be semantic, and it feels like the simplest to work with for themers implementing wide images coexisting with floats.
This adds a wrapping `aside` element to any image block that's floated left or right. From the spec, https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/grouping-content.html#the-figure-element: > For content that is only tangentially related, or that serves a separate purpose than the surrounding flow, the aside element should be used (and can itself wrap a figure). For example, a pull quote that repeats content from an article would be more appropriate in an aside than in a figure, because it isn’t part of the content, it’s a repetition of the content for the purposes of enticing readers or highlighting key topics. The above is the reasoning for using the `aside` element to wrap the figure. But why wrap the figure at all? Because due to issues surfaced in #7624 (comment), it seems our current implmeentation isn't responsive. The challenge is — what if you float a very small image to the left, and write a giant caption. Even if we apply `width: fit-content;` on the `figure`, the caption will expand the `figure` to accommodate as much text as the parent wrapping element will allow. `min-content` doesn't work either, because this will make the `figure` only as wide as the smallest word. What we have in master works in most cases, through dark magic, but it also only works because we remove the `max-width` from the nested image. This means the image won't resize with the viewport, and is therefore not responsive. I have explored so many many options for fixing this, and after all this time, what it boils down to is this: - We can either set a fixed size on floated captions, say 33%, and hope it works for the image that's floated. Not ideal, and you can see the end result here: https://codepen.io/joen/pen/wXbqwN - We can add a wrapping element around the `figure`, so that it and the `figcaption` can be sized using table rules, as in this PR. Why not just set the width on the figure element and float that? Because then we can't accommodate wide images, which rely on an unbounded main column. It's not ideal that we have to add an extra wrapping element, but it can be semantic, and it feels like the simplest to work with for themers implementing wide images coexisting with floats.
* Revisit image floats. This adds a wrapping `aside` element to any image block that's floated left or right. From the spec, https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/grouping-content.html#the-figure-element: > For content that is only tangentially related, or that serves a separate purpose than the surrounding flow, the aside element should be used (and can itself wrap a figure). For example, a pull quote that repeats content from an article would be more appropriate in an aside than in a figure, because it isn’t part of the content, it’s a repetition of the content for the purposes of enticing readers or highlighting key topics. The above is the reasoning for using the `aside` element to wrap the figure. But why wrap the figure at all? Because due to issues surfaced in #7624 (comment), it seems our current implmeentation isn't responsive. The challenge is — what if you float a very small image to the left, and write a giant caption. Even if we apply `width: fit-content;` on the `figure`, the caption will expand the `figure` to accommodate as much text as the parent wrapping element will allow. `min-content` doesn't work either, because this will make the `figure` only as wide as the smallest word. What we have in master works in most cases, through dark magic, but it also only works because we remove the `max-width` from the nested image. This means the image won't resize with the viewport, and is therefore not responsive. I have explored so many many options for fixing this, and after all this time, what it boils down to is this: - We can either set a fixed size on floated captions, say 33%, and hope it works for the image that's floated. Not ideal, and you can see the end result here: https://codepen.io/joen/pen/wXbqwN - We can add a wrapping element around the `figure`, so that it and the `figcaption` can be sized using table rules, as in this PR. Why not just set the width on the figure element and float that? Because then we can't accommodate wide images, which rely on an unbounded main column. It's not ideal that we have to add an extra wrapping element, but it can be semantic, and it feels like the simplest to work with for themers implementing wide images coexisting with floats. * chore: tweak documentation * docs: Tweak some comments Add clarity to HTML elemeents in the comments which might also be read as words. * fix: Update test fixtures for new image float * Fix resize handle names * Revert the part that limits caption width on unresized images We have a plethora of different combinations of images and captions. Floated images with captions, non floated images with captions, small images with captions, etc. etc. In general we use a `display: table;` trick to get the caption to size itself according to the image. However if an unfloated image follows a floated image, this means the unfloated image can size itself down to "fit in the available space", which is not what we want. So for now, if you upload a small image and _don't_ float it, a wide caption will be as centered as the block itself. This might be worth revisiting, but at this point I'd like to look at that separately from this PR which is already big.
Goal: With 3.0, we merged in changes to allow Gutenberg to provide opinionated styles for blocks. For example, to provide CSS styles for the
blockquote, which is traditionally styled by the theme itself. Simply put, atheme.scssexists for each block, and a theme can opt out of those styles, indicating a desire to provide these styles itself. See also https://wordpress.org/gutenberg/handbook/extensibility/theme-support/#default-block-styles. Fixes #7172.This moves opinionated styles, such as colors, fonts, and other non-structural elements to separate theme.scss files which require opt in by the theme itself. This includes in this PR:
In addition to this there's a new caption style mixin which reduces caption style reuse.