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

Re: [CSS22] 10.8 "tall enough"

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 02:49:52 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+cLCmLD5U=nG5mRbsPRHz7gkb1giXC7w3c3nJShbj-TLw@mail.gmail.com>
To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Cc: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 1:33 AM, François REMY
<francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:
> If you find it difficult to read then I guess things could indeed be
> improved.

I didn't say I found it difficult to read. I said that the text is
vague. I'm sufficiently expert on this
content matter to know what all the language means, and I know
vagueness when I see it.

>
>
>
> The paragraph is about inline boxes
> (inline-block/inline-table/inline-flex/inline-grid) that are top or bottom
> aligned,

that isn't clear from the text, since there are other vertical
alignments as well

>and there is therefore no possible concept of ascender or descender

actually, I think this may not be correct; ascenders and descenders of
individual glyphs
are not necessarily contained within their inline boxes; furthermore,
the "top" of an inline
box does not necessarily mean the "top" of the bounding box associated
with a specific
glyph or the characteristic ascender property of the font

> 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.

just take my input into account when improving this text and publishing 2.2;
I can create an issue in github if it will help

> 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>
>>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 08:50:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 11 June 2018 08:50:39 UTC