- From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 05:27:30 -0400
- To: 塩澤 元 (Shiozawa, Hajime) <hajime.shiozawa@gmail.com>
- Cc: Public CSS test suite mailing list <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Le 2015-08-13 03:58, 塩澤 元 a écrit : > Gérard, > > Thank you for the detailed explanation. > I have learned CSS knowledge a lot from you! > > I have changed the assert description and line-height comment. > https://hg.csswg.org/test/rev/828918d30919 > >> Another thing is that the test, for practical purposes, uses an inline > box that has no top-half-leading outside its content area (by setting > on > purpose, deliberately, the span#orange's line-height to 1, that is what > the > test does) so that the orange squares all line up vertically at one > side. >> The test would be tougher for browsers and for the test author (but > doable) if the span#orange's line-height was inherited. > OK, I see. > I'm considering about the way to test when span#orange's line-height > was > inherited (not setting line-height to 1). Do not worry about that for now. I have such tests. The "magic" number is to use 3; a line-height of 3. > I don't have accurate understanding about line-height. Now I'm studying > about it reading the spec. You can examine the tests I did on line-height; I think these tests will help you understand a bit more line-height and some CSS2.1 statements. http://test.csswg.org/shepherd/search/testcase/spec/css21/section/10.8/author/gtalbot/ A few tests in CSS2.1 test suite on line-height and vertical-align are incorrect and have been reported as such; some (non-reviewed) others are doubtful to say the least or they are simply *not* testing what they believe to be testing or what they claim to be testing. There are some tutorials on line-height and vertical-align but often they have errors and misunderstandings. Overall, 'line-height' and 'vertical-align' are 2 properties that are very often misunderstood by web authors. The area created when line-height is set on an inline non-replaced box can not be painted and you can not put a border or an outline around it. So, it's rather difficult to represent. And I am certain, sure that section 10.8 and 10.8.1 should have judicious schemas, diagrams, etc... to illustrate the concepts involved. I have said so several times in www-style mailing list: [CSS21] Section 10.8 on line-height and vertical-align should have schemas and examples http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Apr/0519.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009May/0079.html Re: line-height suggestions and easier alignment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0700.html Line-height property has a very different - totally different - meaning when set on a block element and when set on an inline element: this is also often misunderstood. Gérard > > > > > 2015-08-13 6:15 GMT+09:00 Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>: > >> Hajime, >> >> vertical-align - 'text-bottom' and vertical-rl writing-mode >> >> http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/vertical-alignment-new-006.xht >> >> <meta name="assert" content="This test checks the position of inline >> box >> with vertical align property. When 'writing-mode' is 'vertical-rl', >> 'vertical-align' is 'text-bottom', the physical left (logical bottom, >> namely 'line-under') edge of an inline non-replaced box is aligned >> with the >> left side (logical bottom, namely 'line-under') of parent's content >> area." >> /> >> >> I propose these minor changes: >> >> <meta name="assert" content="This test checks the position of an >> inline >> non-replaced box with vertical align property. When 'writing-mode' is >> 'vertical-rl', 'vertical-align' is 'text-bottom', the physical left >> (logical bottom) edge of an inline non-replaced box is aligned with >> the >> left side (logical bottom) of parent's content area." /> >> >> Why these changes? An inline box does not have a line-under side; the >> line >> box has a line-under side. Line-under should be used for identifying >> one >> line box side only. If there was an *inline-under* concept, then that >> would >> be good usage. Also, the parent's content area is not the inline box >> and is >> not the line box; so it is not a good usage either. The verb "is >> aligned >> with" or "is flush with" (which is used by CSS2.1, section 9.5) does >> not go >> well with the "side" noun you are using. >> >> Same thing with >> vertical-align - 'text-bottom' and vertical-lr writing-mode >> >> http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/vertical-alignment-new-007.xht >> >> >> Another thing is that the test, for practical purposes, uses an inline >> box >> that has no top-half-leading outside its content area (by setting on >> purpose, deliberately, the span#orange's line-height to 1, that is >> what the >> test does) so that the orange squares all line up vertically at one >> side. >> The test would be tougher for browsers and for the test author (but >> doable) >> if the span#orange's line-height was inherited. >> >> - - - - - - - - - >> >> vertical-align - 'bottom' and vertical-rl writing-mode >> >> http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/vertical-alignment-new-008.xht >> >> line 16: font: 3.75em/3 Ahem; /* computes to 60px/90px */ >> >> should be >> >> font: 3.75em/3 Ahem; /* computes to 60px/180px */ >> >> <meta name="assert" content="This test checks the position of inline >> box >> with vertical align property. When 'writing-mode' is 'vertical-rl', >> 'vertical-align' is 'bottom', the physical left (logical bottom, >> namely >> 'line-under') edge of inline-box attaches the physical left (logical >> bottom, namely 'line-under') of line-box." /> >> >> I propose these minor changes: >> >> <meta name="assert" content="This test checks the position of inline >> non-replaced box with vertical align property. When 'writing-mode' is >> 'vertical-rl', 'vertical-align' is 'bottom', the physical left >> (logical >> bottom) edge of an inline non-replaced box is aligned with the >> physical >> left (logical bottom) edge of its line box." /> >> >> - - - - - - - - - >> >> vertical-align - 'bottom' and vertical-lr writing-mode >> >> http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/vertical-alignment-new-009.xht >> >> font: 3.75em/3 Ahem; /* computes to 60px/90px */ >> >> should be >> >> font: 3.75em/3 Ahem; /* computes to 60px/180px */ >> >> - - - - - - - >> >> vertical-align - 'text-top' and vertical-lr writing-mode >> >> http://test.csswg.org/source/css-writing-modes-3/vertical-alignment-new-005.xht >> >> An inline non-replaced box does not have a line-over edge. It's not a >> best, appropriate usage of line-over edge. 'line-over', 'line-under', >> 'line-left', 'line-right' are just logical terms for identifying each >> or >> which sides of a line box we're referring to. >> >> - - - - - - - >> >> Overall, do not use "line-box" and "inline-box"; use "line box" and >> "inline box". >> >> The CSS2.1 uses this kind of wording (verb) when comparing position of >> 2 >> edges: >> >> An edge is [ below | above | flush with | aligned with | on the left >> of | >> on the right of ] another edge. >> >> Gérard >> -- >> Test Format Guidelines >> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-format-guidelines.html >> >> Test Style Guidelines >> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-style-guidelines.html >> >> Test Templates >> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-templates.html >> >> CSS Naming Guidelines >> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-naming.html >> >> Test Review Checklist >> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/review-checklist.html >> >> CSS Metadata >> http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-metadata.html >> -- Test Format Guidelines http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-format-guidelines.html Test Style Guidelines http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-style-guidelines.html Test Templates http://testthewebforward.org/docs/test-templates.html CSS Naming Guidelines http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-naming.html Test Review Checklist http://testthewebforward.org/docs/review-checklist.html CSS Metadata http://testthewebforward.org/docs/css-metadata.html
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2015 09:28:07 UTC