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 > terms. > > 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. > > Cheers, > > Andreas Manuel
