W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2014

Re: [css-values] Line-height relative length units 'lh' and 'rlh'

From: MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 03:57:08 +0900
To: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20140604035708.8E96.C598BCD7@antenna.co.jp>
Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de> wrote on 2014/06/02 17:08:46
> MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>:
> 
> > I would like to propose new relative length units:
> > 
> >   'lh'    line-height of the element
> >   'rlh'   line-height of the root element
> 
> I believe it can be convenient to refer to lines in height measurements like characters ‘ch’ in width, but the other replies do make good points when they say that lines can be higher than specified and that there’s Line Grid and numeric values are probably better.
> 
> Anyhow, a traditional abbreviation for “line” is ‘ln’, but the full word is also just 4 letters, so I’d prefer either
> 
>  height: 20ln;
> 
> or
> 
>  height: 20line;
> 
> The usual caveats for ‘1’ and ‘l’ looking alike in some typefaces apply, of course.

Thanks for your advice.
Yes, 'ln' or 'line' will be more natural for the "number of lines" unit.
However, I prefer 'lh' because it is not exactly such unit. Rather, 
in my idea, it is a relative length unit, that refers to the 'line-height' 
property value.


Regards,

Shinyu Murakami
Antenna House
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 18:57:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:22 UTC