- From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 17:08:00 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@astearns You're correct, of course. Except for monospaced fonts, the `ch` unit (or any other measure of average glyph width) is just a rough approximation. But nonetheless, we have the `ch` unit for exact measurements with monospaced fonts and for approximations elsewhere. And similarly, approximations could be useful in reducing the extent of reflows if not preventing them completely. Using a longer text in @simevidas' demo, I found the optimal adjustment for these two fonts was closer to 0.01em (not 0.005em). Even then, yes, some small words jumped from one line to the next. But the changes averaged out and the overall length of the paragraphs stayed constant. Without the adjustment, changes accumulated and the total number of lines in the text grew. But even if the adjustment is never perfect for variable-width scripts, there are many scripts and fonts which are almost completely monospaced, and would benefit from precise horizontal adjustments, especially as variable fonts with adjustable width become available as the native fallback. -- GitHub Notification of comment by AmeliaBR Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/750#issuecomment-262999301 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 25 November 2016 17:08:06 UTC