W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2018

RE: [CSS22] 10.8 "tall enough"

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 19:41:08 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+fSg_Jq1V20gitTwLRvVWjJgztLyYRR2o9t_zmiKk4PSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
>From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com
>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 00:37:27 +0000
>To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com
W3C Style <www-style@w3.org
>I think it’s not a a term requiring a definition, as it seems more like a
mathematical property to me ("for any content, there exists a length
starting from which more than one solution exists to the alignment
constraints stated above”).

A mathematical property has no meaning without a definition. In this
context, the term "tall" is not defined: does it mean ascender plus
descender for a specific glyph, ascender plus descender of the font and
font size used for a specific glyph? Does it include half leading, etc?
Also, "enough" is not defined: enough to meet what constraint(s)? Also,
what is the scope of "such boxes"? Are they all inline-boxes or just those
with top/bottom vertical alignment?

As a reader, the current text is vague and could be improved.
Received on Monday, 11 June 2018 01:42:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 11 June 2018 01:42:01 UTC