On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 04:12 pm, Finn Bock wrote:
> [Manuel]
> > Inline areas have their own line-height trait which can be
> > different to the line-height on the containing line area /
> > containing block. line-height when specified on an inline fo has a
> > different meaning, i.e. the inline area returned MUST have the
> > exact line-height as specified, while line-height on a block level
> > sets the minimum height for all decendant inline areas. We don't do
> > any of that in the moment. Side note: in layout we don't know any
> > more if a property is inherited or specified on that element, that
> > could be a complication here. Finn, any thoughts on this?
> You mean the phrases: "If the property is set on an inline-level
> element, it specifies ..." is only used when the line-height property
> is explicitly set on inline-level? If the line-height is inherited
> then that paragraph isn't operative?

Yes that's how I read it because otherwise the sentence "If the property 
is set on an inline-level element, it specifies ..." doesn't make sense 
to me. As the property is always implicitly set so this must mean 

Do you (or anyone else) understand that differently?

> If that is the case, then line-height is the only(?) property that
> isn't using the specified value. Strange. But is it not a big deal,
> the inline-level .bind() method will have to check if the line-height
> is explicit set:
>     lineHeightExplicit = pList.getExplicit(PR_LINE_HEIGHT);
> which is then non-null is the property is set on the element. However
> it is a huge deviation from the rest of the properties.

Yes it appears to be.
> regards,
> finn


Reply via email to