- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:14:48 -0800
- To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
- CC: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>, www-style@w3.org
David Hyatt wrote: > > > On Jan 23, 2008, at 5:03 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > >> Anyway, if browsers actually vary the meaning of normal by font, the >> situation is rather odd: > > They do this. A value of 'normal' will use a line height that is equal > to the line gap + ascent + descent, where all three of those numbers are > obtained from the font itself. Hence my complaint about percentage and > numeric line heights being relative to font-size. The intuitive > behavior of 200% or 2 as a line-height value would have been to be twice > the value of 'normal.' It's too late to change this now though. > > I definitely see value in introducing a new unit in order to be able to > specify the line-height as a multiple of 'normal.' I think a new unit based on line-height would be useful to have, but it won't solve the problem for 'line-height' itself. Like 'em' units, it would inherit as a computed absolute length, whereas for 'line-height' you usually want to inherit the factor. It would have been nice if we could define percentages as relative to 'normal' and numbers relative to 'font-size' or something like that.. we might have to settle for something like line-height: 200% normal; ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 22 February 2008 00:14:38 UTC