- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:13:35 -0500
- To: Sergey Malkin <sergeym@windows.microsoft.com>, "Paul Nelson (ATC)" <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@exchange.microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
L. David Baron wrote: > > I'd also comment that I think CSS should bias towards default values > being readable (even if occasionally ugly), and I'm skeptical of > having a default value that ruby should be ignored as part of > line-stacking. I would think ruby should default towards expanding > the line if needed. However, if the author provides enough line > spacing, then it shouldn't cause additional expansion. (This would > suggest a model where line-height doesn't apply to ruby; otherwise > the line-height would inherit to the ruby itself, and the ruby being > offset would make the line expand even more.) > > This is important for cases where, for example, the author specifies > line-height that provides sufficient spacing to fit the ruby in the > fonts on his machine, but where it turns out the spacing is > insufficient on other machines (e.g., mobile devices where the > default font is relatively closer to the minimum readable font size, > so that the ruby is closer in size to the main text). FWIW, I completely agree with this. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 06:47:34 UTC