On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:04 pm, Andreas L Delmelle wrote: > On Sep 24, 2005, at 16:46, Manuel Mall wrote: > > Hi Manuel, > > > Take the following fo snippet: > > > > <fo:block font-size="24pt"> > > BIG > > <fo:inline font-size="12pt" vertical-align="top"> > > small top > > <fo:inline font-size="18pt" vertical-align="bottom"> > > medium bottom > > </fo:inline> > > </fo:inline> > > </fo:block> > > > > Would one expect the text "medium bottom" to be aligned > > a) with the bottom of the text "small top" > > or > > b) with the bottom of the text "BIG"? > > <snip /> > > I'm not an expert here, but maybe it may make things a bit clearer if > you expand the vertical-align shorthand into: > > top: > alignment-baseline="before-edge" > alignment-adjust="auto" > baseline-shift="baseline" > dominant-baseline="auto" > > bottom: > alignment-baseline="after-edge" > alignment-adjust="auto" > baseline-shift="baseline" > dominant-baseline="auto" > > It seems then that the vertical-align on the innermost inline > actually refers to the after-edge, which IIC would be relative to the > after-edge of its parent (and not that of the block ancestor). > > So I'd agree with your hunch and RenderX here... > Andreas, thanks for the quick response. And yes I agree with your expansion. And yes this means "aligned with the 'after-edge' baseline of the parent area". But what is the 'after-edge' baseline of the parent area? (Note it doesn't say "aligned with the 'after-edge' of the parent" is says "aligned with the 'after-edge' baseline of the parent") Any baseline is determined by the actual-baseline-table. And that hasn't changed from the fo:block as changing the font-size doesn't change the baseline-table. So I am back to b) and still confused.
> HTH! > > Cheers, > > Andreas Manuel
