- From: Erik van der Poel <erik@netscape.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 16:18:46 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
All, I had another look at David Baron's font-size test page, and thought about it some more: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~dbaron/css/fonts/sizes/ It seems like the font-size is supposed to be the "em square", and that some glyphs actually protrude outside that square in digital fonts (as explained by Todd). All of the browsers listed on the above page use this definition of the font size, and are therefore correct, I think. When the line-height is 1, the distance from baseline to baseline should be the same as the font size. Since some glyphs actually protrude above or below the em square, it is possible to get glyph collisions when the line-height is 1. That is another good reason for selecting a better value for line-height. Opera 3.60 and MSIE5 (without image) give the correct results for line-height. It seems to me that the background should be as tall as the inline element. Since David's page selects a line height of 1, some glyphs stick out of the inline box. Opera 3.60 correctly colors the background only inside the inline box. The image's height is set to 1em, which is 100px, so several of the browsers get this one right. So it looks like Opera 3.60 is the only one to get all of them right. Now I have a question about aligning text vertically inside its inline box. Is the implementor supposed to use the max ascent (i.e. including any protruding glyphs) or the ascent (i.e. excluding any protruding glyphs)? Erik
Received on Friday, 26 November 1999 19:21:27 UTC