- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 01:36:58 -0500
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- CC: Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com>, "-=}\\*/{=-" <rui.damas@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 01/28/2015 01:28 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > On Wednesday 2015-01-28 01:17 -0500, fantasai wrote: >> As dbaron points out, we currently use the block font settings, >> so should stay consistent with this. There's a good reason for >> this: so that tab indentation lines up throughout the block, >> regardless of any font changes. >> >> Note that 'word-spacing' also affects the size of spaces, so >> should probably also be taken into account. >> >> Proposal therefore is that tab stops are calculated as >> >> n*( width of U+0020 plus letter-spacing plus word-spacing) > > I think one of the goals of doing this should be that, in at least > some cases, the tab stops line up with text as though 'tab-size' > characters had been skipped. > > In order to do that, I think the *first* tab stop should have a > letter-spacing subtracted off (so that it's n-1 letter-spacings > instead of n). Otherwise lines that do use the first tab-stop won't > line up (monospace-grid-wise) with lines that don't, unless the > word-spacing is an integral number of ch. Yes, you're right. *off by one* I knew it was too easy! > I'm also skeptical of including word-spacing at all. I'm not > particularly inclined to assume that all words are single letters; > it might, on the other hand, be reasonable to assume that in a > monospace context authors might use a 'word-spacing' in ch, such > that the word spacing would continue to match the monospace grid. I'm having trouble coming up with a use case as well, but I think it's impossible to argue that leaving it out is more correct. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2015 06:37:25 UTC