- From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:48:34 +0100
- To: werner.donne@re.be
- CC: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, www-style@w3.org, rsgibson@nutrition.earthlight.co.nz
Werner Donné wrote [in two posts]: > It is not my English. According to the specification this qualifies > indeed as a confusion. However, some books on typography refer to > leading as the distance between one baseline to the next. What the > CSS specification calls "leading" is called "lead" in such books. This usage of "leading" has been quite common for many years : TeX (created in 1978) has always used it in this sense. > Absolutely not. If you want to keep the text in phase, you must make sure > that after an area which is out of phase, you get back in phase again. So > the total of the intermediate area must be an integral multiple of the line > height, but the constituent parts don't have to be. > I should remind you that CSS has a print media type. It is normal to expect > better quality on paper. This part of CSS does not get the proper attention. This is a very important concept for printed material, particularly when typesetting in two columns : http://nutrition.earthlight.co.nz/page357.pdf illustrates the need (note how the figures, displayed equations and multi- line headings do not interrupt the regularity of the grid; there is only a one-line overlap on the sample page, but other [better] examples fill the book). > You [David Wooley] seem to count on the fact that design tools will fix the > problem, but you should realize that such tools are not used by everybody. I heartily concur with this sentiment : I have tried to make this point previously, but with apparently little effect. Philip Taylor
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2005 10:50:05 UTC