- From: Erik van der Poel <erik@netscape.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 08:45:00 -0800
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
"L. David Baron" wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 00:13:51 -0800, erik@netscape.com (Erik van der > Poel) wrote: > > > > Assuming that the font-size is 12pt, the line-height is 14pt and that > > 1pt should be added above and below, I think that the vertical alignment > > should be (1pt + ascent), not (1pt + max ascent), since the 12pt > > font-size does not include the max ascent and max descent. > > I agree that you should use ascent, because otherwise it wouldn't be > aligned correctly from the bottom (i.e., centered). (The way you > propose to do things, ascent + descent = font-size, right? Yes. I couldn't think of any better terms. I guess I mean the "ascent part" of the em height, and the "descent part" of the em height. Actually, I'm now not sure that on X this would be XFontStruct.ascent + descent, since the XLFD spec says that they indicate the recommended spacing between lines. The TrueType spec [1] has separate fields for typographical ascent, descent and leading. Perhaps on X I'm supposed to use one or more of the height fields in the long font name itself to specify the em height, and then assume that they've already added the half-leading to ascent and descent. I.e. I would have to subtract their half-leading values, and then add CSS's line-height-based half-leading values. I'll do some more investigation using stock X fonts next week. I will also look into the Windows metrics more closely to see if it's true that Windows does not indicate where the "internal leading" lies. I.e. at the top, bottom or partly both. If the Windows APIs don't give us this info, I'm pretty sure that we can use GetFontData() to parse the info out of the TrueType file itself. (I've already used that API to parse cmap subtables, so it's not entirely foreign to me.) > And I > assume by "vertical alignment" you mean the distance from the top of > the inline box to the baseline of the text.) Yes, that's what I mean. I should have made myself more clear. Erik [1] http://www.microsoft.com/typography/tt/ttf_spec/ttch02.doc
Received on Saturday, 27 November 1999 11:46:12 UTC