- From: Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 16:54:50 +0100 (MET)
- To: Jim King <jimk@mathtype.com>, Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
- Cc: www-style@www10.w3.org
On Jan 31, 4:49pm, Jim King wrote: > I like it a lot. This gives me the all the abilities I was looking for in > CSS1 about a month ago, althouh it would be nice to be able to do quality > subscripting and superscripting using 'vertical-align'. > > A couple of comments after looking at it briefly: > > 1) You never define what units are available. I'd suggest allowing all > units available in 6.1 and 6.2 of the CSS spec: Right. The draft does say it is extending the CSS1 spec (by providing new properties) hence all the units available in CSS1 are still available. > I don't think this can be assumed, given that some of the CSS > spec elements don't support all of them, can you give an example of what you mean? Is this an ambiguity in the CSS1 spec, the positioning spec, or both? > 2)Is there a particular reason that you can't make the line-height take > relative positioning into account? If I have an image that forces the > line-height larger, then I subscript that image using {position: > relative...}, that will leave a large amount of white space above the image > and overlap the bottom. While I can see the power of having the line-height > NOT adjust, it would be good to have the option. Good question. Could you come up with a quick example that illustrates this, which I can forward to the document authors? -- Chris Lilley, W3C [ http://www.w3.org/ ] Graphics and Fonts Guy The World Wide Web Consortium http://www.w3.org/people/chris/ INRIA, Projet W3C chris@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 93 65 79 87 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Monday, 3 February 1997 10:57:51 UTC