L. David Baron wrote: > > I'd also comment that I think CSS should bias towards default values > being readable (even if occasionally ugly), and I'm skeptical of > having a default value that ruby should be ignored as part of > line-stacking. I would think ruby should default towards expanding > the line if needed. However, if the author provides enough line > spacing, then it shouldn't cause additional expansion. (This would > suggest a model where line-height doesn't apply to ruby; otherwise > the line-height would inherit to the ruby itself, and the ruby being > offset would make the line expand even more.) > > This is important for cases where, for example, the author specifies > line-height that provides sufficient spacing to fit the ruby in the > fonts on his machine, but where it turns out the spacing is > insufficient on other machines (e.g., mobile devices where the > default font is relatively closer to the minimum readable font size, > so that the ruby is closer in size to the main text). FWIW, I completely agree with this. ~fantasaiReceived on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 06:47:34 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 January 2008 06:47:35 GMT