- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:36:48 -0700
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: > It all depends on the font. In some fonts ascent will be significantly > taller than cap height, so a lowercase 'f' will loom above a capital "A." > What "size of the text" means is a little fuzzy - is it cap height, ascent, > the max of those, or an optic average? For use case 1, "size of the text" means "a normal height for a capital letter, so it blends in typographically". For use-cases 2 and 3, it means "the largest height such that, when the image is placed on the baseline, it doesn't change the line's height". I *think* that cap height works for both of these definitions. Am I wrong? > The discussion so far seems to be around wanting to size things based on cap > height, which is perfectly fine. Another possible use case could be wanting > to size things based on ascent, which would require a different unit than > "cap height." I just want to be precise about what the current proposal will > be providing. What, precisely, is a use-case for wanting to base something off of the ascent? Describe something an author would want to do, without using the word "ascent". ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 17:37:35 UTC