- From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
- Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 00:40:17 +0000
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- CC: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Oct 3, 2014, at 3:12 AM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: >>> given Dave’s evaluation that there would be fewer elements >>> using the grid than not. > If the grid is based on the body text line height, then having a heading > snap to a multiple is usually way too much line height for a multi-line > heading. There are some finer-grained grids at a fraction of body text > line height where snapping headings will work for Latin text. > > My expectation is that headings in Latin text will usually be box-snapped > to the grid. That allows an appropriate line height for single- and > multiple-line headings while giving some good options for how they > interact with the grid. You can see screenshots for two of these options > in the last two images in this blog post [1]. > > [1] > http://blogs.adobe.com/webplatform/2014/02/05/baseline-grids-for-the-web/ Not sure which picture in the blog post you think is common, but having blocks align to the grid looks natural to me, and matches to what East Asians do[2]. If that’s the case, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to say there are more elements to snap than not to? I can’t really speak of Latin typography better than you, but please keep in mind that, at least in East Asia, authors would want almost every element to snap, except headings and pictures as blocks to snap (see Fig. 4.20 for when headings are of multiple lines[3].) [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/jlreq/#processing_of_gyoudori [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/jlreq/#fig3_1_17-en
Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 00:40:49 UTC