- From: <staffan.mahlen@comhem.se>
- Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:01:16 +0200
- To: Joachim Noreiko <jnoreiko@yahoo.com>, Stanimir Stamenkov <stanio@yahoo.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 26 Sep 2003 at 15:16, Joachim Noreiko wrote: > > --- Stanimir Stamenkov <stanio@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Would it be good if there's a unit just like 'em' > > (where you specify > > a length relative to the parent element's font size) > > to specify > > lengths relative to the parent element's line > > height? > > isn't that > "ex: the 'x-height' of the relevant font" > ? No not really. The x-height is a property of the current font (and could theoretically differ a lot depending on for instance font- family), which typically is around half of an em, and is really independent of the current line-height. The only connection i see is that the line-height is typically (like in the suggested default) defined in em:s, which are also a property of the current font. I'm not sure the suggestion is a good idea since i think it may be difficult to use with some line stacking strategies of CSS3. This is a rather complex area of CSS, and without quite specific and important use cases for such a unit i don't think it should be considered. Is the computed end result of the unit only dependant on the line- height property or are you considering values relative to the actual calculated line-box height? In the former case you should probably use explict declarations instead since you may need to consider possible replaced element and in the second i think the potential for circular dependencies etc is far to large. How would you know how many lines you needed in the float example? Unless you use nowrap or something you couldn't really know since that is UA and font dependant i think. /Staffan
Received on Saturday, 27 September 2003 05:02:23 UTC