- From: AmeroHan via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2025 21:31:12 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
We also need to consider the following cases: 1. If the current font does not provide a glyph for a variation sequence, should the variation selector be ignored, or should the user agent switch to the next font in the fallback list? 2. If we choose to ignore the variation selector, or if we opt to search through fallback fonts but none of them provide a glyph for the variation sequence, then there are two scenarios: - The most common scenario: Neither the variation sequence nor the variation selector has a glyph. In this case, we need to pretend the variation selector does not exist and perform possible spacing trim. In other words, `<…, punctuation, VS, punctuation, VS, …>` should be treated as `<…, punctuation, punctuation, …>` rather than `<…, punctuation, ZWSP, punctuation, ZWSP, …>`. - Another less common scenario: The final chosen font does not define a glyph for the variation sequence, but does define a glyph for the variation selector (such as [Last Resort Font](https://github.com/unicode-org/last-resort-font)). In this case, we may need to skip spacing trim and render the glyph instead. -- GitHub Notification of comment by AmeroHan Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/13204#issuecomment-3639048456 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2025 21:31:13 UTC