|
|
Posted by dorayme on 11/03/07 19:20
In article <slrnfipg4h.4jv.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>,
Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2007-11-03, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > In article <slrnfiogtv.v30.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>,
> > Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2007-11-03, dorayme
> >> >
> >> > http://netweaver.com.au/test/lineHeight.html
> >>
> >> The spec is rather unclear on this:
> >
> > I agree. As so often, One stares at the specs, forms about 4
> > alternative pics in the brain as to what the meaning or
> > implications really are, shrugs, makes some test cases and the
> > pennies start to drop - with any luck. Then one goes back to the
> > specs and they look a bit clearer. <g>
>
> Indeed, I only figured out what the spec was talking about after looking
> at your example.
>
> But if you read the bit about "cascading" it does explain (more or less)
> that it's computed values that are inherited. That suddenly makes the
> line-height section make more sense.
Yes, it does. All a matter of it registering, be nice if it was
at the time one consults the specs. I have always been impressed
by how some people here (including you of course) seem able to
read the specs with as much clarity as you do. I tend to have to
do it with more hindsight. I recall Jukka Korpela pointing out
about the trap of units for line-height in an exchange with me
ages ago and it was a salutary lesson.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|