W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > March 2017

[csswg-drafts] [css-inline] baseline values for dominant-baseline and alignment-baseline

From: Koji Ishii via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 07:31:44 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.opened-216331747-1490254302-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
kojiishi has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== [css-inline] baseline values for dominant-baseline and alignment-baseline ==
Some questions and suggestions to the values of the '[dominant-baseline](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-inline-3/#dominant-baseline-property)' and the '[alignment-baseline](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-inline-3/#alignment-baseline-property)':
1. I believe '_alphabetic_' means the baseline of Latin scripts. Is this correct?
2. If so, could we use '_latin_' or '_roman_', since every script has alphabets, unless this is already implemented and used? I don't know the differences between Latin and Roman, but OpenType uses 'romn' tag in the baseline table.
3. What are the difference between '_ideographic_' and '_text-bottom_', when both says the bottom? Does one include internal leading while the other doesn't? Or is the diff only appear in inline replaced elements?
4. Could we not use the term '_ideographic_' for the under-side baseline? Opposite from the '_alphabetic_` case, I guess this is from OpenType uses 'ideo' for the bottom in its baseline table, but this value is not for ideographic scripts, and thus is confusing for authors of ideographic scripts.

FYI, @eroux is working on [BASE table support in HarfBuzz](https://github.com/behdad/harfbuzz/issues/418).

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1121 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 23 March 2017 07:31:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:09 UTC