Skip to content

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

Closed

Description

@fantasai

@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?

Activity

  1. frivoal commented on Jun 18, 2020

    @frivoal
    Collaborator

    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.

  2. fantasai commented on Jun 18, 2020

    @fantasai
    CollaboratorAuthor

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

  3. fantasai commented on Mar 28, 2025

    @fantasai
    CollaboratorAuthor

    Closing this issue without prejudice: if there ends up being use cases for longhands, someone can file a new issue and we can consider them at that point.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions