You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This issue is about the second one. Currently we only consider fallback glyphs when line-height is normal; in other cases we only consider the first available font. But we do consider glyphs in descendant boxes in all cases. So a few questions:
In particular, given the ability of text-edge to trim into the glyph which exacerbates any overflow/overwrite effects as a result of differing fallback font metrics, would we want to either make that possible, either as the default or as an option?
There are two independent ways in which the “size” of an inline box is relevant:
#5226 is about the first issue.
This issue is about the second one. Currently we only consider fallback glyphs when line-height is normal; in other cases we only consider the first available font. But we do consider glyphs in descendant boxes in all cases. So a few questions:
In particular, given the ability of
text-edge
to trim into the glyph which exacerbates any overflow/overwrite effects as a result of differing fallback font metrics, would we want to either make that possible, either as the default or as an option?This is a follow-up issue from today's discussion on text-edge and leading-trim.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: