- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 09:17:07 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20141226141707.GA13256@crum.dbaron.org>
A few comments on http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-ruby/#line-height , the section on how ruby affects line spacing. # However, if the line-height specified on the ruby container is # less than the distance between the top of the top ruby # annotation container and the bottom of the bottom ruby # annotation container, then additional leading is added on the # appropriate side of the ruby base container This needs to say what definition of "top" it's using. In inline layout both top margin edge and top of font + leading are frequently used, although in this case it might actually mean the top of an anonymous block (or line) sized around the ruby as though it is an inline (which would include the line-height of descendants as well). It could mean one of these, or something else. Which is chosen affects whether 'line-height' on display:ruby-text-container and (separately) on display:ruby-text has any effect. # such that if a block consisted of three lines each containing # ruby identical to this, none of the ruby containers would # overlap. It's not clear to me that there's a clear position and size defined for the ruby container, such that it's clear what it means for them to overlap. Does this mean to say "none of the ruby base containers and ruby annotation containers would overlap"? It should also probably be clearer, again, on which definitions of top and bottom are being used. It might also be better to define the amount of leading added, which would make it clearer, for example, that this rule on preventing overlap applies before relative positioning. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
Received on Friday, 26 December 2014 14:17:33 UTC