[csswg-drafts] [CSS2] improve wording (#12853)

UnVuTWFu has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== [CSS2] improve wording ==
In this [specification](https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607)

In 10.8:
>The **height** of each inline-level box in the line box is calculated. For replaced elements, inline-block elements, and inline-table elements, this is the height of their margin box; for inline boxes, this is their 'line-height'. (See ["Calculating heights and margins"](https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/visudet.html#Computing_heights_and_margins) and the [height of inline boxes](https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/visudet.html#inline-box-height) in ["Leading and half-leading"](https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/visudet.html#leading).)

I think the "height" should be changed to "line height".Only the height of atomic inline box equal to its line height,and the height of inline box is not defined according to 10.6.1:
>The ['height'](https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/visudet.html#propdef-height) property does not apply. The height of the content area should be based on the font, but this specification does not specify how. A UA may, e.g., use the em-box or the maximum ascender and descender of the font. (The latter would ensure that glyphs with parts above or below the em-box still fall within the content area, but leads to differently sized boxes for different fonts; the former would ensure authors can control background styling relative to the 'line-height', but leads to glyphs painting outside their content area.)

So the “height” in this context just refers to the “line height” rather than the height of a box.It looks easy to cause confusion,right?


Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12853 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Thursday, 25 September 2025 05:52:27 UTC