- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:05:34 +0000
- To: Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de>
- CC: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, www-style@w3.org, www International <www-international@w3.org>
I'm wondering whether something along the lines of line-height, internal to the intial letter box, could help simplify setting of the necessary space. ri On 11/02/2015 10:40, Arle Lommel wrote: > I rather suspect there is no way you will avoid this problem > systematically. I have seen systems that have set sizing based on the > characters’ physical bounds (rather than the bounding box), and that > tends to mess things up even more. (A build of the open-source Lilypond > software for typesetting music had, at one point, a system for setting > lyrics that set spacing based on the physical height of the text lines, > so lines with no descenders were set too close to following lines. The > results were ugly, to put it mildly.) > > In this case what is clearly going on is that CSS is considering the > bounding boxes of the characters as defined in the fonts. Since the > diacritics sit outside the bounding box for the base character, the CSS > model ignores them (which is what you want for /most/ typographical > purposes). > > If you want to make a systematic fix you'd need a setting that tells the > rendering engine to ignore the bounding box and instead consider the > physical position of all character elements. That would require > rewriting the rendering engine to support this use case. That is, of > course, a non-trivial task. > > -Arle > > Sic scripsit *Richard Ishida * ad *Florian Rivoal * die Tue Feb 10 2015 > 17:29:28: >> What concerned me was that the combining characters leaked outside the >> box. I think that one could add enough padding to avoid this, but it >> is a messy job for an author, and may require different settings for >> each initial-letter (not all have combining characters). With my >> author hat on, i'd just want to say 'make it all fit', and have >> combining character accounted for too. I think we'd need to fix that. >> >> Note also that there is a gap in the English example where the beard >> of the type is empty (because there's no descender). >
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 16:05:46 UTC