Re: [css-writing-modes] Atomic inline "capable" of providing its own baseline

On Jul 23, 2014, at 02:42, fantasai <> wrote:
> On 05/12/2014 05:36 AM, Simon Sapin wrote:
>> §4.3 Atomic Inline Baselines
>>> If an atomic inline (such as an inline-block, inline-table, or
>>> replaced inline element) is not capable of providing its own baseline
>>> information, then the UA synthesizes a baseline table thus:
>> I understand what is intended here, but only based on prior knowledge.
>> This text does not help determine whether a particular atomic inline
>> is capable of proving its own baseline information.
> We could probably do with tightening that up a bit, yes, but I think
> it might be a good idea to wait until baseline alignment is fully
> defined in css-align so we hook into the right vocabulary. :/
>> Also, the "capable of proving its own" wording is a bit weird, as if
>> inline boxes were sentient beings.
> But anthropomorphizing non-human objects is a time-honored literary
> tradition!
> Also, capability does not necessarily require sentience. An aeroplane
> is capable of flying, for instance.
>> I suggest replacing the quoted text with:
>>> Unless specified otherwise, the baseline information for an atomic
>>> inline box is synthesized as follows.
> That's not quite correct either. (Note that contributing a baseline
> and synthesizing one are two different things.)

This level of English correctness is above my capability to determine, so I simply took wording from CSS 2.1 saying “does not have a baseline”. There might be a better way to say it, but it was once approved, I hope it’s ok until css-align or other spec defines it better.

The note section looks ok to me, added with slight edits.

Please let me know if the edits do not look accurate, or do not look to reflect the what you want to fix.

Fixed section:


Received on Saturday, 12 September 2015 12:58:08 UTC