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

Re: Inline formatting model document

From: Erik van der Poel <erik@netscape.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:39:40 -0800
Message-ID: <38838C1C.9E4E063B@netscape.com>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
CC: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
> I think the UA should be allowed to draw the underline wherever it
> wants, but I'm against making the line box calculations more complex.


> Even if you were to achieve an esthetical improvemnet in the
> glyph/underline relationship, wouldn't you lose that by having uneven
> line spacing (e.g. in a non-underlined block element, with a small
> underlined inline element in it) ?

No, I'm proposing that the line spacing remain even. I.e. the
implementation chooses the actual line-height value when it is specified
as "normal", and then that value is divided however we like between top
and bottom. How about the following wording in the spec:

  line-height: normal

    The implementation MAY use the vertical spacing (leading)
    information found in some fonts.

  Vertical alignment of glyphs in font boxes

    The implementation MAY divide the vertical spacing (leading)
    unevenly between the top and bottom of the font box.

This also means that we have to add the term "font box" to the spec, and
we have to add some wording about vertical alignment of font boxes
within inline boxes, and so on (as I mentioned in a previous message).

Yes, this makes the line box calculations more complex, but I don't see
how you can get around this, since CSS already allows multiple fonts to
be specified in font-family:

  font-family: Arial, MS Gothic;

Received on Monday, 17 January 2000 16:43:19 UTC

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