Re: vertical-align (5.4.4)
>> <P>This is an inline equation:
>> <IMG STYLE="height: 120px; width: 300px; vertical-align: -45px"
>Yes, this is much cleaner.
>Replaced elements have no baseline by default. Can they be given one?
> <P>This is an inline equation:
> <IMG STYLE="font-size: 100%;
> height: 4em; width: 10em;
> vertical-align: -5%"
>If so, the above would produce a graphic that is both sized and
>vertically-aligned relative to the parent's font.
Now that IS good! As to the baseline, if there was a way to define one I
wouldn't need to be asking these questions! I think the assumption I saw
everywhere in the CSS spec was that replaced items have a baseline value
equal to the bottom of the object.
You're assuming here that a replaced item can actually have a font-size. Is
that true? It can't have a line-height currently. If it could have a line
height, then I'd modify your example to be:
<P>This is an inline equation:
<IMG STYLE="font-size: 100%;
height: 4em; width: 10em;
because the vertical-align percentage is based on the line-height, so we
need to define it. I guess I could surround the image with a <SPAN> as I did
at the top, but it would be nice if the thing were clean and self-contained.
I still think we need the ability to specifiy other types of units in
vertical-align. In this particular case, I'd want to define it in terms of
'em', since that is how the height was defined. If the % related to the
font-size or the object height David's example would be perfect, but it
doesn't right now.
Does anyone have a feeling as to why other units are NOT allowed in
Design Science, Inc. Sales: firstname.lastname@example.org
4028 Broadway Support: email@example.com
Long Beach, CA 90803
USA World Wide Web:
voice: 310-433-0685 http://www.mathtype.com