W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2001

Re: CSS 2: Table Cells and the "line-height" Property

From: Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:11:22 -0800
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <1226186234-365981095@psdbay.com>
From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Subject: Re: CSS 2: Table Cells and the "line-height" Property
Date: Thu, Mar 29, 2001, 9:42 PM

> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Tantek Celik wrote:
>>
>> How about we simply define the behavior of 'normal' to mean
>> "vertically shrink wrap the element", which is the traditional HTML
>> presentation.
>
> This is a change from the spec,

I believe the spec is loose enough in this regards to make this
reinterpretation.

> a change from existing RELEASED
> implementations that are within the spec

IMHO this behavior (extraneous white space around images in table cells) is
both a bug and undesirable.

Similar to "resetting" font properties inside table cells.

> and a change to interpretations
> of the spec that have been publicly discussed for YEARS in www-style.

Disagreed.

>> Why not make the 'normal' value useful _and_ kindler/gentler to HTML
>> authors?
>
> The spec is already backwards compatible with all the common cases!!!

This is a statement made in denial (refusal to acknowledge the default
vertical shrink wrapping behavior in HTML Presentation)
- or it is a contradiction on your part (the only way the spec could be
backwards compatible is if the unset/initial (as you say) value 'normal'
meant vertically shrink wrapping behavior).


Frankly, this discussion appears to be wasting time.

This paragraph summed it up nicely:

James Aylard wrote:

> The Mozilla interpretation seems to argue for theoretical purity (as
> defined by its own interpretation), whereas it seems there is room
> for a little more pragmatic common sense.

Theoretical purity is worthless (except to academics) unless it serves its
purpose properly when put to practice.

In other words: a pure model is not necessarily a usable model.

Our implementation prefers usability (compatibility), whereas your
interpretation prefers some sort of simplified (but less useful) purity.

I'd like to point out exactly how useless this arguing about line-height is:

Here is the quote from CSS1 sec.5.4.8 again:

 "A value of 'normal' sets the 'line-height' to a reasonable value for the
element's font. It is suggested that UAs set the 'normal' value to be a
number in the range of 1.0 to 1.2. "

NOTHING in that paragraph is normative.  The modifiers "reasonable" and
"suggested" are certainly soft enough to permit a UA to do anything it
wishes with the initial value of 'normal' from a conformance standpoint.
Any other assertions are merely personal opinions and/or wishful thinking.

I have defined in this public forum what we do with the 'normal' value, and
our reasons for doing so (backward compatibility with common use).

Fellow implementers - treat 'line-height:normal' as you wish.

Tantek

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What were you doing?                        http://www.microsoft.com/mac/ie/
Received on Friday, 30 March 2001 02:11:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:08 GMT