RE: Hanging indent

Interesting.  Is the solution that you propose something like this:

#sample1 { text-indent: 2em; }
#sample2 { text-indent: 0em; }
#sample3 { text-indent: -2em; }

  +-----------------+
  |  This is a text |
  |indent of 2em.   |
  |Only line 1 is   |
  |indented.        |
  +-----------------+
  
  +-----------------+
  |This is a text   |
  |indent of 0em.   |
  |Line 1 is flush  |
  |with the rest.   |
  +-----------------+
  
  +-----------------+
  |This is a text   |
  |  indent of      |
  |  negative 2em.  |
  |  Every line but |
  |  line 1 is      |
  |  indented.      |
  +-----------------+

Regards,
Peter


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Coises
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 3:42 AM
> To: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Hanging indent
> 
> 
> 
> [Mon, 3 Jun 2002 21:51:00 +0200] Bert Bos:
> >6) Both solutions, a new property and a new value for 'text-indent',
> >would also have a problem with backwards compatibility, because CSS2
> >implementations would not show any effect at all, neither an indent
> >nor an outdent.
> >
> >In short, the working group would like to see more convincing
> >examples, before trying to add anything to CSS3.
> 
> 
> A much simpler solution --- in my humble opinion --- would be 
> to define
> negative text-indent values as setting the first line of a block flush
> with the content edge and indenting the following lines by 
> the appropriate
> amount.  The margin/border/padding values then continue to mean
> (in an intuitive sense) what they mean in any other context.
> 
> This does have the serious disadvantage of being incompatible 
> with CSS2;
> I submit that in all other respects, it makes far more sense 
> than saying
> that negative values cause the text to move out of the content area.
> 
> Consider, for example: what happens with the CSS2 method of creating
> hanging indents should the overflow property be other than visible?
> -- 
> Randall Joseph Fellmy aka Randy@Coises.com
>

Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2002 10:27:31 UTC