On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 06:12 pm, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
> On Sep 25, 2005, at 03:49, Manuel Mall wrote:
<snip/>
> >> ... but the baseline-shift value for the first inline is non-zero
> >> (value "baseline" is not equal to value "0"), so the Rec says in
> >> 7.13.3:
> >
> > I think that is the core point. IMO the baseline-shift for the
> > first inline is 0. Yes, there is a change of alignment-baseline but
> > NO shift of any baseline. As you pointed out before
> > vertical-align="top" is equivalent to:
> > alignment-baseline="before-edge"
> > alignment-adjust="auto"
> > baseline-shift="baseline"
> > dominant-baseline="auto"
> > And 7.13.3. says for baseline-shift="baseline": There is no
> > baseline-shift; the dominant baseline remains in its original
> > position.
>
> Exactly the source of the confusion. If it had been:
>
> alignment-baseline="before-edge"
> baseline-shift="0"
>
> That would have been something different. As I understand, the
> "baseline" value for baseline-shift is precisely meant to distinguish
> between the 'no-shift' cases where the baseline-table component does
> or does not need to be re-computed... ("baseline" != "0")
> First, the baseline-table component is re-computed, and then 'the
> dominant-baseline remains in its original position' (= after the
> re-computation)
>
This is where we disagree and I think I have the spec "on my side" as it
says in 7.13.3 that a value of "0" is equivalent to
"baseline" ("baseline" == "0"). This is mentioned under both
<percentage> and <length>. Therefore IMO the spec does not make a
semantic distinction between a value of "baseline" and a value of "0".
Actually I would argue that the computed value of the specified value
"baseline" is "0".
> > So neither changing the font-size nor changing the vertical-align
> > to "top" or "bottom" involves a baseline-shift and therefore the
> > original baseline-table stays in place.
>
> I hate to be a such pest, but I disagree :-P
>
That's OK and no your are not a pest because if you are I would be an
even worse pest (what a horrible thought...). But I really think this a
quite important stuff. In the end positioning a glyph correctly, that
is in accordance with the rules of the specification given a set of
formatting instructions provided by the user, is the core function of a
formatter. If we can't get that right why do we bother? And to get this
right we have to understand it first which is what this exchange is all
about. So keep coming... :-)
> BTW: Where's all the others? Ah well, it's weekend after all... :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andreas
Cheers
Manuel
