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

RE: [CSS22] 10.8 "tall enough"

From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 07:33:11 +0000
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AM0PR0402MB38753AA8E91989943C08C8DEA5780@AM0PR0402MB3875.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
If you find it difficult to read then I guess things could indeed be improved.

The paragraph is about inline boxes (inline-block/inline-table/inline-flex/inline-grid) that are top or bottom aligned, and there is therefore no possible concept of ascender or descender in those case, so « tall » means that you consider the « height » of the box relative to the natural size of the line. That sounds to me exactly like the definition of tall as found in an English dictionary. That being said, it is true that, in CSS specs, we sometime overload normal English words to new meanings so one should probably always be more suspicious than usual.



________________________________
De : Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Envoyé : Sunday, June 10, 2018 6:41:08 PM
À : W3C Style
Objet : RE: [CSS22] 10.8 "tall enough"

>From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com<mailto:francois.remy.dev@outlook.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%5BCSS22%5D%2010.8%20%22tall%20enough%22&In-Reply-To=%3CAM0PR0402MB3875045BB4A3A8DA45EB5596A5780%40AM0PR0402MB3875.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com%3E&References=%3CAM0PR0402MB3875045BB4A3A8DA45EB5596A5780%40AM0PR0402MB3875.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com%3E>>
>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 00:37:27 +0000
>To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com<mailto:glenn@skynav.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%5BCSS22%5D%2010.8%20%22tall%20enough%22&In-Reply-To=%3CAM0PR0402MB3875045BB4A3A8DA45EB5596A5780%40AM0PR0402MB3875.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com%3E&References=%3CAM0PR0402MB3875045BB4A3A8DA45EB5596A5780%40AM0PR0402MB3875.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com%3E>>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org<mailto:www-style@w3.org?Subject=RE%3A%20%5BCSS22%5D%2010.8%20%22tall%20enough%22&In-Reply-To=%3CAM0PR0402MB3875045BB4A3A8DA45EB5596A5780%40AM0PR0402MB3875.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com%3E&References=%3CAM0PR0402MB3875045BB4A3A8DA45EB5596A5780%40AM0PR0402MB3875.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com%3E>>
>
>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 07:33:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 11 June 2018 07:33:37 UTC