W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2016

Re: [css-text] Issue 18: character-based alignment in table columns

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:45:52 -0800
To: Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56ABEBA0.1030609@inkedblade.net>
On 01/27/2016 10:41 AM, Dave Cramer wrote:
> I'm all in favor of making CSS better than InDesign. I'm not so sure about the right thing to do. Let's look at the most
> common case of a bold row in a decimal-aligned table. In Adobe Caslon Pro, the em-squares of both roman and bold numerals are
> 500 units wide (1000 units/em). The em-square of the roman period is 254 units wide, but 280 units wide for the bold period.
> So where does that extra space go? In InDesign, numerals to the right of the alignment character are pushed right a bit. This
> leaves numerals to the left unaffected.
> If we center the alignment character, then numerals to the left shift a tiny bit right, and numerals to the right shift a tiny
> bit left.
> I think the InDesign behavior might be more desirable, given that numbers to the left are literally more important (and there
> are usually more of them).

However, numbers are usually right-aligned with a constant number of
decimal points  so the discrepency is likely to be more noticeable
on the right...

It's also quite likely to use this alignment for times (':'), fwiw.

I think center-aligning is probably the best compromise: it's a clear,
simple answer that will never depend on writing mode or text alignment.
If there isn't a better reason than that, then I think centering is

Received on Monday, 1 February 2016 02:49:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:56 UTC