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

Re: Inline h*ll

From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 04:48:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20000118124833.21486.qmail@web904.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>


--- Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- "L. David Baron" <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 02:40:59 -0800 (PST),
> > =?iso-8859-1?q?Matthew=20Brealey?= (thelawnet@yahoo.com) wrote:
> > > 
> > > --- Ian Hickson <py8ieh@bath.ac.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > > However, previous
> > > > proposals from both David Baron and myself have suggested that to
> > make
> > > > line-height work well for blocks, an anonymous inline should wrap
> > all
> > > > blocks' contents. This would result in the same effect as with the
> > > > empty inline BR in the previous example, and is what both Opera 4
> > and
> > > > Mozilla 5 have implemented.
> > >  
> > > If you are wanting to browsers to diverge from the published
> > > specification, far better would be to encourage them to follow a
> > sensible
> > > line box proposal in the first place.
> > > 
> > > As I see it, there is nothing that is useful in the current float
> > > specification, and a whole lot that is very bad. It is illogical,
> > > confusing and almost without any merit whatsoever.
> > 
> > The best reason to do anonymous inline boxes the way I suggest is
> > that it prevents non-presentational markup from having side-effects
> > in unexpected ways.  
> 
> A very good reason _not_ to do it in the way that you suggest (well not
> the way you suggest in particular, but any line box implementation that
> follows the spec) is that is impossible to predict the size of the line
> box.
> 
> For example,
> P {line-height: 10px; font-size: 100px}
> SPAN {font-size: 10px; line-height: 14px}
> 
> <p>
> The <span>text</span>
> </p>
>    ----|--- 
>        |    | 
>        |    |     
> -------|----|-----|---|      
> |      |    |---| |   |      
> -------|----|---| |---|
>        |    |   | |   |------|
>        |    |   | |---| text |
>                       -------|
> 
> The theoretical bottom of the outer text is (10-100)/2
> = 45px below the bottom of its box. It baseline is 
> therefore 45px - Bp below.
> The SPAN's baseline is aligned with its baseline.
> Therefore the bottom
> of its box is 45px - Bp + SPAN's half-leading + Bspan
> I.e., the bottom of the SPAN box is 45px+(14-10)/2 + Bspan-
> Bp = 47px + Bspan - Bp.
> 
> As a result, from the bottom of the lowest box to the top
> of the highest (=line box height)
> is 10px + 47px + Bspan - Bp.
> Without information on what Bspan and Bp are, we can only
> say that the line box is 57px +- x, where x is totally unknown.
> 
> This demsonstrates another absurdity of the spec.

Furthermore, what (arbitrary and necessary) value do you suggest for
anonymous?
> 

=====
----------------------------------------------------------
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 Tuesday, 18 January 2000 07:48:35 GMT

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