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

Re: [css-values][css-writing-modes] ch and ic units

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 22:39:58 +0900
Message-ID: <CAN9ydbVKZQ97P4+GNAjJD-om46L=7VMFkednPbEMBZVy=yV9pg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:

> I prefer "ch" always be the "width of "0" glyph, or 0.5em" as what authors
> lose looks more than what authors get.
> Why is the width of the 0 character interesting if text is set upright? If
> it is mixed or sideways, I agree width is the right measure, but for
> upright I don't see it.

For me, "ch" is an approximate unit that represents approximate average
width of Latin characters, and I expect it to be 60-80% of "em", similar to
what "en" does in non-CSS world. It doesn't guarantee to fit any specific
number of characters in horizontal flow, so I don't expect it in vertical
flow either.

If I were to think sizing by the number of ideographic characters, the use
of "em" is natural to me. And upright Latin is, for me, ideograph-ized
alphabets just like full-width alphabets.

Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2016 13:40:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:01 UTC