- From: Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:09:08 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 2014-02-28 10:58 (GMT) Simon Sapin composed: > I know it’s not Last Call yet :) But what do you think of renaming > "extent" a.k.a. "logical height" to "block size", and "measure" a.k.a. > "logical width" to "inline size"? Nay! > I may be getting English wrong, but to me "extent" and "measure" are > both synonymous to "size". Size of an object displayed on a two dimensional surface is a function of two lengths (or extents, or measures). Size is poorly used in CSS as applied to text. 10px is a measure of a single length. Objects measuring only a single length are invisible abstractions. Text has both height and width, so a "10px" glyph is really something on the order of 50px in *size*, a function of a 10px measure vertically and ~5px measure horizontally, and thus ostensibly visible. Doubling text height from 10px to 20px actually quadruples its *size*. A reduction of text size from 16px to 10px, a CSS size reduction of 37.5%, is a *physical* size reduction of ~61%. IOW, 10px text is 39% of the *size* of 16px text. Thus, neither extent nor measure are good synonyms for size. > The terms by themselves don’t tell me which > is which. I understand (after reading it in the spec) that "measure" is > more specific in typography, but I don’t know how much of the "target > audience" is familiar with that. I wasn’t. Measure and extent as used imply single measurement results, single lengths, not areas (sizes) resulting from measurement of two lengths. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Received on Friday, 28 February 2014 16:10:02 UTC