- From: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
- Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:08:19 -0400
- To: CSS specification-development list <www-style@w3.org>
Laurens Holst wrote to the CSS specification-development list <mailto:www-style@w3.org> on 7 July 2005 in “Re: Dimensions better than unitless numbers for future CSS specs” (<mid:42CD08B4.2020508@students.cs.uu.nl>, <http://www.w3.org/mid/42CD08B4.2020508@students.cs.uu.nl>): > How is a unitless number for an addition different from using a unitless > number for a multiplication (as is the case with line-height, and would > be with word-spacing)? The case of 'line-height' is special. A 'line-height' value of a unitless number implies typographical muttons. But using the CSS 'em' dimension, the usual CSS way to represent typographical muttons, carries a particular semantics for inheritance. The alternative, I suppose, would have been the creation of a new unit, say, 'heritable-em' or 'hem'. A 'heritable-em'/'hem' unit is a reasonable idea. Such a unit would work well with properties like 'word-spacing': <T-1 style="font-size: 8pt; word-spacing: 0.1hem"> <T-2 style="font-size: 2em"> Word spacing here is the sum of 1.6pt and any one of the normal values for the used fonts at 16pt. </T-2> </T-1> If 'word-spacing' were to permit unitless-number values, why should the implied unit be the normal word spacing instead of heritable em? > That’s the whole idea of unitless numbers, they are used for pure > mathematical operations where a unit is not appliccable. In the cases under discussion, units are applicable. An image rendered at 0.75 times its intrinsic width still has a rendered width that one can measure in millimeters. > After all, if you have 5 times 1 meter, you don’t say "1m x 5m", > but you say "1m x 5". And if one has 5 times normal word spacing, I do not suggest writing {1norm * 5norm}. While we could introduce a construct such as {1norm * 5}, the idiomatic CSS would be the simple {5norm}. -- Etan Wexler.
Received on Saturday, 9 July 2005 19:05:18 UTC