- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 07:32:24 +0100 (BST)
- To: www-style@w3.org
> I can't see why. In the example the lines would always be in proportion > to the font. If you use absolute measures, increasing the font size could > make the lines overlap. Perhaps there is a catch you might care to explain. > Overlapping is exactly what happens if you, like most people who use line-height, use anything except pure numbers. If you use em sizes, the line height is only correct for the font size on the element for which the line-height property was applied. If you use 1.2, as does the specimen style sheet the CSS specification, the line height is proportional even if the font size is changed in a sub-element (possibly by another style sheet). > > Well, that is what grammars are for, isn't it? They are with us since quite > a while now. The key design rule for CSS grammars is backwards compatibility. All new syntax must result in the new construct being ignored by browsers that don't support the new features. > > Absolutely not. If you want to keep the text in phase, you must make sure I would say that was well beyond the scope of CSS. It will break as soon as another style sheet intervenes. CSS should be designed on the basis that you are not the only person controlling the layout. If you want absolute control, please use tagged PDF instead. > If every proposed feature is going to be rejected purely on the basis of > browsers being immobile, then why bother with CSS3 at all? On this list It is a fundamental design principle of CSS that new features should not prevent older browsers from interpreting the parts of the style sheet they understand. It also ought to be a fundamental design principle of "web designers" to ensure that, for example by preceding a rule for a new feature with a fall back rule, that their designs also exhibit that backwards compatibility.
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2005 06:47:47 UTC