Re: [css-values][css-writing-modes] ch and ic units

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:

> I prefer "ch" always be the "width of "0" glyph, or 0.5em" as what authors
> lose looks more than what authors get.
>
>
> Why is the width of the 0 character interesting if text is set upright? If
> it is mixed or sideways, I agree width is the right measure, but for
> upright I don't see it.
>

For me, "ch" is an approximate unit that represents approximate average
width of Latin characters, and I expect it to be 60-80% of "em", similar to
what "en" does in non-CSS world. It doesn't guarantee to fit any specific
number of characters in horizontal flow, so I don't expect it in vertical
flow either.

If I were to think sizing by the number of ideographic characters, the use
of "em" is natural to me. And upright Latin is, for me, ideograph-ized
alphabets just like full-width alphabets.

/koji