Steve's font size proposal right. And font-size is cross technology. The unit em is very old, predating computers. Outside of the web em is font-size, http://www.thomasphinney.com/2011/03/point-size/ With regard to the items we are defining em is font-size on the web. For letter-spacing in CSS for example, a value of .1em, with a font size of 16px is 1.6px above the default (called 'normal' letter spacing). Line-height of 1em is the font-size for the element. +1 to Steve. Wayne Note 1. I used .1em instead of .12em because it was easier to multipy by 16. Note 2: Browsers don't do this exactly. Allocating .16px must be difficult. I measured this directly for Arial with normal spacing against Arial with 0.1em letter spacing and got 1.578px added to default letter spacing. That's 0.022 pixels different from .16px the predicted value. On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote: > +1 to Stephen’s recommendations. > > > > Discussing type/font size/width/height is a minefield, I think that’s the > best path. > > > > > > *From: *"Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> > > > > Hi John, > > > > That’s actually incorrect with regard to letter and word spacing. It’s a > factor on font size (height in your proposal) just like the rest. Given > that “font height” is not language used in any spec or software I’m aware > of, I think we should stick to “font size”, which is universally understood. > > > > I still have concerns about testability and the need for testing it at > all, but we can see what the public says. One change that I do think we > need to make is to remove the “(2 lines)” from the 2nd bullet. It makes > it seem like a “line” is equal to the font size, which is not true. > Simplify to: > > > > 2. spacing underneath paragraphs to at least 2 times the font size > > > Steve > > >
Received on Friday, 14 July 2017 20:02:21 UTC