search

w3c / csswg-drafts

CSS Working Group Editor Drafts
https://drafts.csswg.org/
Other
4.51k stars 671 forks source link

[css-inline-3] text-edge-over/text-edge-under vs text-edge shorthand #5236

Open fantasai opened 4 years ago

fantasai commented 4 years ago

@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?

frivoal commented 4 years ago

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.

fantasai commented 4 years ago

I've drafted it up with longhands for now; defaulting missing keywords to text because that's the safest.