W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > September 2006

RE: possible bug in t100801-c42-ibx-ht-00-d-a.xht

From: Peter Sorotokin <psorotok@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 08:04:04 -0700
Message-ID: <40CE68F1F8CAFB48B998C328517EA92AFCB198@namail2.corp.adobe.com>
To: <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>

> From: public-css-testsuite-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-css-testsuite-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of L. David Baron
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 1:23 AM
> To: public-css-testsuite@w3.org
> Subject: Re: possible bug in t100801-c42-ibx-ht-00-d-a.xht
> [snip]
> > The height of the content area is explicitly undefined in section
> > (as you pointed out). What browsers seem to do is to define the
> > area height (and position) being the same as *default* line height
> > (which is quite reasonable). Following the spec *suggestions* and
> > defining content area height in terms of the em box of the font or
> > ascender/descender (which is the same thing for Ahem) does not seem
> > work for this test.
> For Ahem, these should both be exactly the same as the font-size.  Is
> that not what the test is testing?

Correct me, if my reasoning is wrong. This is what CSS default for
line-height is (section 10.8.1):

normal - Tells user agents to set the used value to a "reasonable" value
based on the font of the element. The value has the same meaning as
<number>. We recommend a used value for 'normal' between 1.0 to 1.2.

So default line box height is about 1.2*fontSize and em box is, of
course, just fontSize high.


> -David
> -- 
> L. David Baron                                <URL: http://dbaron.org/
>            Technical Lead, Layout & CSS, Mozilla Corporation
Received on Monday, 25 September 2006 15:04:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 September 2010 17:51:54 GMT