W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2000

RE: What's an em

From: Karlsson Kent - keka <keka@im.se>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 18:47:28 +0100
Message-ID: <C110A2268F8DD111AA1A00805F85E58DA6858C@ntgbg1>
To: www-font@w3.org
Cc: www-style@w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clive Bruton [mailto:clive@typonaut.demon.co.uk]
> Karlsson Kent - keka wrote at 02/02/00 16:20
> >Assume the (lowercase dominated) headings are asked (by the page author)
> >to be of x-height 7 mm in Flemish Script, the body text (lowercase
> >dominated) to be of x-height 3.5 mm Verdana.
> I think trying to specify type on screen in mm would be a 
> mistake, but...

Works nicely.  I've used it.  Though obviously not for the
x-height since that functionalit is not there (yet).

> >Whatever font substitutions
> >are done (keeping the asked-for x-heights to a reasonable degree), one
> >would still get a proper percieved size difference between the heading
> >and the body text.  Right? Or???
> Yes, great. What would the line-height be? For a clue on this 

The line height should be (asked to be) the same as the (nominal) p 
height for that font (&size), or slightly larger (as usual). Since the 
ascenders (and descenders) are unusually tall in that typeface, some 
ascender/descender overlap may still occur.  But is that not a *desired*
effect for *that font*? As it is for some other fonts as well (like 
the example in http://style.metrius.com/junk/emtolineheight.gif),
where using the ""em"" height most certainly will produce (desired)

Note that I'm not claiming perfection for "unusual" typefaces
(I never did).

		Kind regards
		/kent k
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2000 12:48:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:53 UTC