- From: Chris Lilley via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:21:03 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@jfkthame @drott Where are these "same heuristics" defined? > `<emeyer>` …Therefore, if the metric is missing, we should use the same heuristics we use for units for ex or cap when the metrics aren't available Values 3 has some possible wording, but very handwavey. For example for [missing cap height](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-4/#cap): > However, a [cap](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-4/#cap) is defined even for fonts that do not contain Latin letters. The cap-height of a font can be found in different ways. Some fonts contain reliable metrics for the cap-height. If reliable font metrics are not available, [UAs](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-2023/#user-agent) may determine the cap-height from the height of an uppercase glyph. One possible heuristic is to look at how far the glyph for the uppercase “O” extends below the baseline, and subtract that value from the top of its bounding box. In the cases where it is impossible or impractical to determine the cap-height, the font’s ascent must be used. I can link to that for now, but the result is unlikely to be testable or interoperable even on the same platform. -- GitHub Notification of comment by svgeesus Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6384#issuecomment-2587879777 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 13 January 2025 18:21:04 UTC