W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 1998

Re: Correct way to define "leading" - compatibility problems

From: Clive Bruton <clive@typonaut.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 98 02:02:41 +0000
To: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1323922970-11442196@battersea.indx.co.uk>
Chris Lilley wrote at 23/02/98 12:31 am

>I would prefer you called it line height. Line feed is often used for
>one of the two popular characters that signal end of line (CR, LF) and
>leading has the disadvantage that some people use it to mean line height
>and some use it to mean (line-height - font size) which is actually more
>accurate. To be super accurate it could be called brassing since my
>understanding is that these strips were made of brass not lead. But back
>to CSS...

Generally speaking "type" people refer to baseline to baseline 
measurements as "leading", but you're quite right that this may be 
construed by others as inaccurate.

>> I seem to have two (at least) solutions for defining leading:
>>      { line-height: 1.5em }
>> or
>>      { font: 1em/1.5em }
>That is an incomplete example since the font family is always required.

Sorry, I was trying to be brief, obviously overly so. The relevant values 
are in the full style sheet in question.

>Try again with a valid font: aand see what happens. Try different units
>(pixels, points, mm, etc).

Using different units would mess up what I'm trying to achieve, some form 
of scaleability. But I'll see what happens.

>Can you provide a specific test case which we can try out?

I'll post an example in the next 24hrs or so.

-- Clive
Received on Sunday, 22 February 1998 21:06:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:46 UTC