- From: fantasai via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 04:42:31 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Some points from reviewing the issue and the proposed PRs: - What @szager-chromium describes as a "hanging glyph" in his [proposed appendix](https://github.com/szager-chromium/csswg-drafts/commit/706fb9ed0193b21e6e1505c41e142e11d45601bb) is not what css-text considers a "hanging glyph". What he's describing (see his [illustration](https://www.software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0A%3Cdiv%20class%3D%22figure%22%20style%3D%22margin%3A0%3B%20font-size%3A10rem%3B%20font-family%3Agaramond%3B%20font-style%3Aitalic%22%3E%0A%09%20%20%20%20%3Cspan%20style%3D%22display%3Ainline-block%3B%20width%3A1ch%3B%20height%3A1lh%3B%20background%3Agreen%3B%20opacity%3A0.5%22%3E%3C%2Fspan%3E%3Cspan%20style%3D%22vertical-align%3A%20top%3B%22%3Ef%3C%2Fspan%3E%3Cspan%20style%3D%22display%3Ainline-block%3B%20width%3A1ch%3B%20height%3A1lh%3B%20background%3Agreen%3B%20opacity%3A0.5%22%3E%3C%2Fspan%3E%0A%09%20%20%3C%2Fdiv%3E%0A%09%3C%2Fdiv%3E)) is a glyph whose glyph bounds extend beyond its bounding box. This is already defined as being ink overflow in the [definition of ink overflow](https://www.w3.org/TR/css-overflow-3/#ink). I don't mind adding clarifying statements about that elsewhere (e.g. where we define the sizing of an inline box), but it definitely has nothing to do with the definitions in `hanging-punctuation`. - For `border-image`, this is already defined as ink overflow, but the terminology didn't exist when css-backgrounds-3 was written; added in as an editorial clarification to the spec in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/ee0d71805788f959d8c10886e099e1143f0aed1d. I also made the same clarification for `box-shadow` in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/b03d1239730353564165aa9ee464887f531b906b. - Text decoration is already defined as ink overflow, and I don't think the proposed example adds very much to the spec. As @jfkthame explains, and as several of [your PRs](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8649#issuecomment-1998341267) admit, ink overflow is not going to be a 100% interoperable measurement, only an interoperable concept, because of the differences in painting and font rendering across implementations. Given we've defined what is and is not ink overflow already, what point of confusion are you trying to clarify here in this issue? -- GitHub Notification of comment by fantasai Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8649#issuecomment-2106643476 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 13 May 2024 04:42:32 UTC