- From: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
- Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 12:52:43 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
Todd Fahrner wrote: > Aye - this is the point of font-size-adjust. Right. I wasn't thinking of font-size-adjust relative to the historical reference I quoted, but now that I am, I'll point out that in 17 years producing art for printing I never heard the term "aspect value," nor did I ever have easy access to the x-heights of specific faces. If I'd considered the font-size-adjust property back when it was proposed, I'd have suggested that the adjustment be relative to the first-specified font face and not require a number that is not readily available. I now suggest, based on the recent postings to this thread, that the values be 'none', 'x-height', 'cap-height', 'font-height', and 'inherit', with font-height being the total height of the font bounding box, which may be taller than the font-size. This, to me, seems more generally useful. I also question the use of the word "bicameral" in the spec. What, I wondered, does the latin word for "chamber" have to do with fonts? Why not "dual-case (uppercase and lowercase)", and "single-case", which could be easily understood by anyone who understands the terms "uppercase" and "lowercase?" David Perrell
Received on Saturday, 27 November 1999 15:53:33 UTC