Re: vertical-align (5.4.4)

• To: "Jim King" <jimk@mathtype.com>
• Subject: Re: vertical-align (5.4.4)
• From: "David Perrell" <davidp@earthlink.net>
• Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 19:52:52 -0800
• Cc: "Hakon Lie" <howcome@w3.org>, <www-style@w3.org>, <dsr@w3.org>
• From www-style-request@www10.w3.org Mon Dec 16 23: 05:30 1996
• Message-Id: <199612170402.UAA08865@serbia.it.earthlink.net>
• X-List-URL: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Archives/Public/www-style/
• X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
• X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
• X-Priority: 3

Jim King wrote:
> 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.

I suppose it can't have a font-size, since font-size implies
line-height. So my example is bogus.

The designers did a admirable job fitting the default HTML treatment of
replaced elements into the CSS model. But, IMO, two changes would make
the spec more versatile without screwing up current behavior:

(1) Allow any measurement for 'vertical-align', not just percentage.

(2) Specify that relative measurements such as 'em' and 'ex' should
refer to the parent's font if the element has no font-size property.

These changes would allow both sizing and vertical alignment of images
relative to the surrounding text.

I see no side effects from these enhancements. Am I missing something?

David Perrell

• Re: vertical-align (5.4.4)
• From: Hakon Lie <howcome@w3.org>

• Prev: Re: vertical-align (5.4.4)
• Next: RE: background images/Internet Explorer
• Index: Message index of www-style@w3.org mailing list
• Thread: Thread index of www-style@w3.org mailing list