On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:27 pm, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2005, at 17:22, Manuel Mall wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:04 pm, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
> >> 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")
> Yeah, sorry, I was being too fast here and forgot a few important
> Anyway, the full description would be:
> The alignment-baseline on the first inline is aligned with the
> before-edge baseline of the outer block. Now, IIC, this has an impact
> on its own after-edge baseline, which is then in its turn the basis
> for the alignment-baseline of the innermost inline (?)
You are right - this is exactly the question: Does it have an impact on
its after-edge baseline or not? Intuitively I would say YES but the
spec says NO the baseline table is not recalculated (rescaled) when the
font-size changes. The baseline-table seems to only be recalculated on
a baseline-shift but not otherwise.
> That was actually more the point I wanted to make.