- From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:56:34 -0600
- To: "Eric A. Meyer" <eric@meyerweb.com>
- Cc: CSS <www-style@w3.org>
One additional point I should make here is that I actually hate the fact that 100% and 1 are not the same as 'normal' for line-height. If I'd been designing it, I'd have made 100% and 1 be multiples of the computed normal line-height and not of the font-size. The 'em' unit already exists to allow for line-heights as multiples of the font size, but there is absolutely no way in CSS to make the line-height a multiplier of the 'normal' height. dave (hyatt@apple.com) On Jan 21, 2008, at 2:50 PM, David Hyatt wrote: > > On Jan 21, 2008, at 2:38 PM, David Hyatt wrote: > >> >> >> On Jan 21, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Eric A. Meyer wrote: >> >>> >>> At 5:18 PM -0800 1/17/08, Alex Mogilevsky wrote: >>> >>>>> * Conversely, the borders overlap in Explorer and Firefox at >>>>> '1', >>>>> but get close to touching at '1.2'. Which again seems backwards. >>>> >>>> '1' is normally less than default line height defined by font. So >>>> span borders (which are drawn around actual character boxes) will >>>> overlap. What is unexpected there? >>> >>> Wait, what? The last I checked, the height of a line is based on >>> the computed 'font-size' of an element. > > What Alex is saying is that the default value of "normal" for line- > height results in the browser using the line height that is built > into the font itself. That value, if viewed as a multiple of the > font size, is almost always > 1 (and usually closer to 1.2). > Picking '1' as your explicit line-height is typically going to > result in lines that are pretty close together, since you've > effectively eliminated the gaps between lines (making it possible > for a character with a large descent to touch a character on the > next line with a large ascent). Therefore building additional > height into any spans on the line through the use of border/padding > is going to pretty much guarantee an overlap of those boxes. > > dave > (hyatt@apple.com) > >
Received on Monday, 21 January 2008 20:56:50 UTC