On 5 Sep 2008, at 05:40, Christian Montoya wrote:

> OK, I understand that it's not a convention, but you have to admit
> that 1.5 works really nicely as a convention because the line-height
> always comes out to a whole value when the font-size is an even
> number. So if you wanted to change the text size to a base of 14, your
> line-height would be 21, and if you wanted it to be 16, your
> line-height would be 24. If you have 12/20, or 1.667, then if you
> change your font-size to 14, your line height ends up being a decimal,
> which may or may not be rounded correctly. It would only come out to a
> whole value for font-sizes that are multiples of 3, which gives you
> less options.
>
> Just an idea... my point is that 12/18 doesn't make hand calculations
> easier but the fact that it's 1.5 makes the whole thing more flexible.

I originally said the only reason I saw for using 1.5 was because it  
made things easier. That doesn't make it right or a convention. If you  
are changing font sizes within a design with a set rhythm you should  
be at least considering what the new font size's appropriate line  
height should be - either by matching the main baseline rhythm or  
complimenting it by setting it in some interval of it. E.g. a line  
height of 15 would sync with a line height of 18 every 5 lines etc  
etc. I can't see why you would intentionally stick with a formula even  
if it gave you bad output as in your 1.667 example.

What if you chose a base font size of 11, 13 or 17? Your examples  
don't work for them and they are just as valid a choice as any other.  
It is wrong to speak as if there is some set convention that is not of  
your own choosing. 

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Blueprint CSS" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/blueprintcss?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to