- From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 09:12:51 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@kojiishi I agree with your logic (in comment https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3749#issuecomment-477992347), and prefer option 1. I wouldn't object to option 2, but then I'd hope it would be defined precisely, which I don't think is the case today. option 3 is not terrible, but it just pushes the problem down the line. @MatsPalmgren The bit of spec you quoted in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3749#issuecomment-478187692 is known to be wrong, as no browser implements `normal` as being equivalent to some number in the 1.0 to 1.2 range, and instead all browsers implement it as a union of the ascenders and descenders of fonts actually in use. We have a WG resolution and spec text to fix that (https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/1993), but unfortunately, not active CSS2.1 editor to apply the fix at the moment :( Either way, this is about the computed value, not the value returned by getComputedStyle, which may or may not be the same (and in this case, isn't). -- GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3749#issuecomment-483172598 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 15 April 2019 09:12:55 UTC