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

RE: What's an em

From: Clive Bruton <clive@typonaut.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 14:54:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <S.0000076124@mail.indx.co.uk>
To: <www-font@w3.org>
cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Karlsson Kent - keka wrote at 02/02/00 17:47

>> 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).

Sure, what does 7mm rasterise to at varying dpi screen rates 72/96/120...?

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

This isn't about abnormal faces, you can clearly see that 
acsender/descender clash is occurring/is going to occur on faces that are 
considered quite normal (in the previously cited example).

I think you're also indicating that line-height should also flex in 
sympathy with font-size-adjust? This seems particularly odd, since 
line-height is yet another factor of perceived size. Scaling Verdana to 
match your concept of perceived size is going to reduce the line-height.

As to accents... some may consider these to be at least partially outside 
the em square. Some practice determines that accents may not be set on 
caps or all caps text anyway (ie in French setting this is often the 
case).

It is far more likely that acsender/descender clash will happen than 
accent/descender. Ascender heights in most fonts are set to ascender 
rather than accent extremities.

I think x-height is a good value to have for meta data, but the use you 
want to put it to is misconceived.


-- Clive
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2000 10:21:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:03 GMT