You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
@dbaron raised the question of whether we need the longhands for text-edge, or just a shorthand. Are there use cases where it would be convenient to cascade them independently?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I am not convinced we need the longhands, but we should certainly have a shorthand. The simplest grammar would probably be this:
text-edge: leading | normal | <over-metric> <under-metric>
<over-metric>: text | cap | ex | ideographic | ideographic-ink
<under-metric>: text | alphabetic | ideographic | ideographic-ink
I suppose we could also make the second value optional, and map it to the same value as the first one in the cases where the pairs exist (text, ideographic, and ideographic-ink). What the implied second value would be if you picked cap or ex as the over side is less obvious though. Maybe cap, which is a broad metric, might be matched with text for the under side, while ex, which is a tight metric, would be with alphabetic.
@dbaron raised the question of whether we need the longhands for
text-edge
, or just a shorthand. Are there use cases where it would be convenient to cascade them independently?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: