W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2009

Re: [Resent: Disadvantages of ch unit (was: stability of root em unit spec)]

From: Thomas Phinney <thomas.phinney@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:30:25 -0800
Message-ID: <f49ae6ac0901121130o154af10cie726033c656bcd3b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dave Singer" <singer@apple.com>
Cc: "Josef Schmid" <e9427749@student.tuwien.ac.at>, www-style@w3.org

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Dave Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> At 11:34  -0800 9/01/09, Thomas Phinney wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, in most (though by no means all) fonts, the digits are
>> monospaced, even if the font is not.
>>
>> That being said, I agree that knowing the width of the zero alone,
>> without knowing for sure that the digits are monospaced, would seem to
>> be of limited value.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> T
>
>
> off the top of my head
>
>
> perhaps it should be defined to be "the monospaced digit width, if there are
> both digits and they are monospaced, else 0"?

Makes sense to me.

T
Received on Monday, 12 January 2009 19:39:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:15 GMT