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 explicit. 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 Manuel
