W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 1999

Re: CSS2 implementation

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:57:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199908091657.MAA21924@ice2.fas.harvard.edu>
To: ament@xs4all.nl, kaj@raditex.se
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 17:59:43 +0200, Rasmus Kaj (kaj@raditex.se) wrote:
>  a> <HMTL><BODY> TEXT IS NI<EM>C</EM>E </BODY></HTML>
> 
>  a> where normal text has a margin-left: 2em
>  a> and EM-text has a margin-left: 4em
> 
> I assume:
> BODY { display: block; }
> EM { display: inline; }
> 
> In this case, anonymous inline boxes should be created like this:
> 
> <HTML><BODY><anon> TEXT IS NI</anon><EM>C</EM><anon>E
> </anon></BODY></HTML>

That is what the spec says [1], but I don't think it makes much sense,
since it doesn't explain why the anon and em inline boxes should have
the same baseline.  As I've said before [2], I think the following:

<HTML><BODY><anon> TEXT IS NI<EM>C</EM>E</anon></BODY></HTML>

makes much more sense, since the vertial-align: baseline (the typical
value) on the EM has a parent inline box to which it can align.
Otherwise, if, for example, EM had a computed font-size of 300% and
vertical-align of baseline, there would be nothing wrong with
formatting it as:

  TEXT IS NI|--E
            |
			|__

rather than

			|--
            |
  TEXT IS NI|__E

It would also give a much nicer way to describe the action of
line-height on a block-level element.

David

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#anonymous
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/1999Jan/0027.html
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/1999Mar/0121.html

L. David Baron     Rising Sophomore, Harvard     dbaron@fas.harvard.edu
Links, SatPix, CSS, etc.        < http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~dbaron/ >
Summer Intern, Netscape - however, opinions are entirely my own, etc.
Received on Monday, 9 August 1999 12:57:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:00 GMT