- From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:12:53 -0800
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>, "www-style@gtalbot.org" <www-style@gtalbot.org>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Andrew, My understanding of the text that you reference is that minimal means that no line within the block will have a line height of less than the line-height of the block. It seems to me that your test case shows exactly that. Did you have something else in mind? Steve Zilles -----Original Message----- From: a.fedoniouk@gmail.com [mailto:a.fedoniouk@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Fedoniouk Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 4:01 PM To: www-style@gtalbot.org Cc: www-style@w3.org Subject: Re: [css21] line-height, problem? Hmm, seems like my understanding of word "minimal" is completely wrong. Consider this very simple doc: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/14981836/line-height-test-min.htm At the moment the spec[1] says: "On a block container element whose content is composed of inline-level elements, 'line-height' specifies the minimal height of line boxes within the element." But UAs render this example as if 'line-height' specifies not the minimal height but just height of line boxes. Either spec is wrong with use of "minimal" there or UAs are wrong all together. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#propdef-line-height -- Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:18 AM, "Gérard Talbot" <www-style@gtalbot.org> wrote: > > Le Lun 26 novembre 2012 13:51, Andrew Fedoniouk a écrit : >> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:14 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> >> wrote: >>> On Sunday 2012-11-25 23:21 -0800, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: >>>> This sample: >>>> >>>> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/14981836/line-height-test.htm >>>> >>>> contains two identical paragraphs, the only difference is that >>>> first one has line-height:normal and second one - line-height:1em; >>>> >>>> According to the spec [1]: >>>> 'line-height' specifies the *minimal* height of line boxes >>>> within the element. >>>> >> ... >>>> >>>> I suspect that I miss something between lines of the spec. >>>> My understanding of the spec wording is this: >>>> >>>> used-line-height = max( {normal-line-height}, {defined-line-height} >>>> ); >>>> >>> >>> (1) when you're testing line-height, you should really test >>> standards mode rather than quirks mode; quirks mode behavior is >>> substantially different (and not fully explained by the first two >>> items in http://quirks.spec.whatwg.org/#css ). >>> >>> (2) 'normal' and '1em' are *very* different in terms of how they >>> inherit when the font size changes (since '1em' inherits as the >>> computed value, which is no longer relative to the changed >>> descendent font size). 'normal' and '1' are much more similar. >>> >>> -David >>> >> >> Thanks, David. I've updated the sample with HTML5 doctype. >> That actually makes no difference (only IE started to match all other >> UAs here). >> >> In fact I've missed that part in the spec: >> "On a non-replaced inline element, 'line-height' specifies the height >> that is used in the calculation of the line box height." > > Right here, the "calculation of the line box height" should be a link > to > > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#line-height > > And the sentence itself is not easy to figure out. It should be saying > instead/rather: > > "On a non-replaced inline element, 'line-height' specifies its height > which will be used in the calculation of the line box height." > > because > > " > The height of each inline-level box in the line box is calculated. For > replaced elements, inline-block elements, and inline-table elements, > this is the height of their margin box; for inline boxes, this is > their 'line-height'. > " > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#line-height > >> >> So for such elements (like <big> in my sample) line-height defines >> not "min-line-height" but just 'line-height' allowing to reduce it. >> Together with the fact that line-height is an inheritable property >> that creates such strange effect. > > Not sure what you're trying to say... but I definitely agree with you > that this part of the spec - without useful diagrams and judicious > explaining schemas - is difficult to visualize, to conceptualize. > > Gérard > -- > CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011 > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html > > Contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite > http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/ > > Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite > http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-c > ontributions-css21-testsuite.html >
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2012 00:13:25 UTC