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

Re: Baselines (was RE: Units, font sizing, and zoom suggestion for CSS 3)

From: Bert Bos <Bert.Bos@sophia.inria.fr>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 23:36:53 +0100 (MET)
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <14490.55930.49831.769566@lanalana.inria.fr>
Erik van der Poel writes:
> Bert Bos wrote:
[...]
> > 1) One idea I've heard to deal with this is selectors for scripts (or
> > alternatively for Unicode ranges). Most recently from Matthew
> > Brealey[1].
> > 
> >     :chars(U+4E00-4E1F) { baseline-identifier: ideographic }
> > 
> > 2) Somewhat simpler is to introduce script-specific properties:
> > 
> >    P { baseline-identifier-ideographic: ideographic;
> >        baseline-identifier-latin: lower }
> > 
> > 3) But this all has the smell of defining the obvious. Maybe the
> > simplest solution is to add 'auto' to 'baseline-identifier'.
> 
> I like your (3) most, if we introduce baseline-identifier at all.

Hmm, re-reading this, I think there is no need at all to define the
baseline for each untagged piece of text. If there is mixed text in an
element, it should all be aligned on the same baseline anyway.

But 'auto' is still useful, provided there is a way to derive the
baseline automatically. I wonder if that is possible. It probably has
to be derived from the language, that's the only thing the UA knows
about a text. There are languages which use two different scripts, but
are there languages whose scripts have different baselines?

Or do you know a better way than to use 'baseline-identifier'?



Bert
-- 
  Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
  http://www.w3.org/people/bos/                              W3C/INRIA
  bert@w3.org                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
  +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Friday, 4 February 2000 17:36:55 GMT

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