- From: Koji Ishii via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:32:32 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Since I wasn't able to express my points very well in the weekly conf call, let me continue my points here by cc'ing people who spoke at the weekly on 25 Jan, from [IRC log](https://log.csswg.org/irc.w3.org/css/2017-01-25/#e766245): @astearns @stevezilles @tantek @tabatkins @dbaron @fantasai @dauwhe @litherum @FremyCompany There were some points what I said didn't seem to be understood correctly, or I didn't understand even by reading IRC log, so appreciate to read through and comment here if any. `line-height: normal` doesn't produce a robust layout as discussed, and I agree that a robust layout is one of important principle in CSS, and that `line-height: normal` is against that. The purpose of `line-height: normal` is different; it is designed to avoid line overlaps as much as possible. Making any text readable without unexpected overlaps is also one of important principles in CSS. These two important principles conflict to each other. I think that is why `line-height` gives a choice to authors, and I think CSS chose the right default because overlapping is worse problem. What I was trying to say at the weekly was that we need to give the choice to authors regardless rhythmic sizing is used or not, and IIUC this is also what @litherum was trying to say. I made [a multi-script sample text here](http://jsbin.com/xekuhu) (credits to @r12a and @aphillips, thank you!) For scripts in this example, I hope you see `normal` works perfectly in all browsers, but if we were to pick one fixed value, probably "1.8" is a good value. But I saw an example where "1.8" wasn't still tall enough before. Pick "2"? But it's too tall for some other scripts, such as Latin. Or, maybe, I wonder, from @fantasai's comment above, this point was understood but cases where font metrics-based line height and rhythmic sizing used together was not understood? If that's the case, I'm quite sure this case is common; author wants a constant rhythm, such as 18pt. The page has CGM that text can be in various scripts. Author wants to prioritize "lines not to overlap" over "possible additional space when falls back to bad fonts occurs," because font fallback is more predictable than CGM text content. In this case, the combination of `normal` and rhythmic sizing is what the author needs. If the author uses `line-height: normal`, Latin lines will fit to one step unit, while Tibetan may fit to two or three step units, but still the rhythm is kept. ...or maybe concerns discussed there was different from either of above, appreciate if someone can explain more if so. -- GitHub Notification of comment by kojiishi Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/938#issuecomment-275470960 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2017 18:32:38 UTC