- From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:48:57 -0500
- To: "Paul Nelson (ATC)" <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>
- Cc: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org, WWW International <www-international@w3.org>
Paul Nelson (ATC) scripsit: > I have seen cases of ancient books where the Arabic baseline was rotated > 180 degrees so the Arabic text hung from top of the page to the bottom. Doubtless that is what I was thinking of. My bad. Of course, horizontal scripts aren't like this: a horizontal script can validly run from top to bottom or from bottom to top (to the annoyance of people who interfile English and German books, for example). > In fact, line-height is a concept of ascender + descender + leading. > Regardless of the escapement or glyph orientation of the line the > ascender is from the baseline to the ascent and from the baseline to the > descent. My point is simply that the terms "height", "ascender", and "descender" are biased towards horizontal layout; they suggest that the characters are displayed in a vertical orientation. I don't think anything can or should be done about this. -- In politics, obedience and support John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> are the same thing. --Hannah Arendt http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 16:49:10 UTC