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

Re: font-size and accents, again

From: Erik van der Poel <erik@netscape.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 12:42:36 -0800
Message-ID: <3846D9BC.601B4448@netscape.com>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
CC: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>, www-style@w3.org
Chris Lilley wrote:
> If there were Vietnamese in there - where you can
> have up to three accents on top of one another - then the font would be
> outside the bounding box so the white accents would bbe lost against the
> white and cyan background.

Glyphs cannot go outside their font's bounding box, by definition.
Perhaps you meant "outside the background".

And actually, that raises a good point. Originally, we were talking
about how to center a piece of text inside its inline box (because that
is what the spec talks about).


But now we seem to be talking about centering a piece of text inside its
background. The errata say that the padding starts at the top and bottom
of the font:


(Look for the errata for 10.6.1.) (Background = content + padding.)

So now we need to figure out what "the top and bottom of the font" means
in this context. I.e. is it the em square, bounding box or what?

Looks like we have a lot of clarification work to do for the spec (and
even for the errata)...


PS Some authors might want to draw a border tightly around a piece of
text. If we specify that the padding starts at either the em square or
bounding box, the border might look too far away from the top and bottom
of a piece of text that is not very tall, such as "one".
Received on Thursday, 2 December 1999 15:45:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:52 UTC