Posted by Ben C on 11/03/07 22:37

On 2007-11-03, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <slrnfipg4h.4jv.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>,
> Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-11-03, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[...]
>> > 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.

It's all hindsight on my part too, but you do reach a point (after a lot
of trying things out) where the penny drops and you can tell what most
of it is talking about.

But then it still isn't so easy to explain it because you find yourself
starting to use the same incomprehensible jargon yourself.

> 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.

As far as I can see one almost always would want to use 1.2 rather than
120%. That's the simple lesson to take away here.

[Back to original message]