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.

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?] 
is wrong - v-a relates to l-height.
For line boxes not terminated by a forced break, 
A good point - at present it is wrong not to justify elements with forced
breaks, but this is an absurdity.
attempt to remove the unfilled horizontal space by modifying none, any, or
all of the letter spacing, word spacing, 
Absolutely (but add the proviso that letter-spacing should only be
adjusted where letter-spacing: normal)

font stretch, or character widths.  

Goodness no.

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).
Potentially controversial clarifications

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

[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?]

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.
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2000 11:44:24 UTC

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