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

Re: Inline h*ll

From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:44:13 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20000113164413.27903.qmail@web901.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
--- "L. David Baron" <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> 
> In response to Eric's comments on Sunday, I decided to write a
> comprehensive description of the inline box model as I understand
> it.  This is both an explanation of CSS2's inline box model and a
> proposal for clarification and modification of it, along the lines
> that I have proposed before in this group.  I think most of the
> changes give the results intended by the rules in the spec.  Since
> font size issues are part of the inline box model, I have had to
> include a possible solution for problems with fonts discussed late
> last year [1].
> 
> Anyway, it's available at:
> 
> http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~dbaron/css/2000/01/dibm
> 
> I would be interested to hear what others have to think about this
> description.

First things first, please fix your links. I've noticed before that you
don't seem to test your local links before posting pages.

Secondly, I'm not getting any images.

Thirdly:
<blockquote>
<percentage> 
Convert the percentage into a length by multiplying by the font-size, and
then treat as a <length>. Negative percentages are allowed. [NOTE: Is the
computed value of the font-size, the actual value of the font-size (of the
first font), or the height of the font box used?] 
</blockquote>
is wrong - v-a relates to l-height.
<q>
justify 
For line boxes not terminated by a forced break, 
</q>
A good point - at present it is wrong not to justify elements with forced
breaks, but this is an absurdity.
<q>
attempt to remove the unfilled horizontal space by modifying none, any, or
all of the letter spacing, word spacing, 
</q>
Absolutely (but add the proviso that letter-spacing should only be
adjusted where letter-spacing: normal)

<q>
font stretch, or character widths.  
</q>

Goodness no.

<q>
If this is not possible or not done, for lines terminated by a forced
break, or for lines with overflow, treat the line as if text align were
left (if direction is ltr) or right (if direction is rtl).
</q>
<q>
Potentially controversial clarifications

Clearly state the meaning of the values of text-align.  
</q>
Indeed. There is no need for this.

<q>
[NOTE: Should percentages and scaling factors be based on the computed
font size, the actual font size (of the first font in the font set or a
combination?), or the actual max-ascent to max-descent (of the first...?),
i.e., the font height?]
</q>

They are based on the computed value. It is unnecessary to use max-ascent
and max-descent. This a superfluous complication since no-one really uses
line-height: 1, and all that is needed for those that do is to be aware
that it is unsafe with heavily accented fonts.



=====
----------------------------------------------------------
From Matthew Brealey (http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet (for law)or http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet/WEBFRAME.HTM (for CSS))
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2000 11:44:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:02 GMT