https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155893
--- Comment #8 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to خالد حسني from comment #7) > It depends on what the expectation is. It seems the current behavior aligns > the ascenders and descenders not the base lines. I guessing you mean either ascenders or descenders? > It probably makes sense, > for top alignment you need to aligns the top of the lines so that is the > ascender, for bottom alignment it is descender and for middles align it is > line height (ascender + descender). I'm not sure that aligning ascenders or descenders makes sense. Suppose we have two fonts F1 and F2 which are identical, except that F1 has really long ascenders - just extended upwards for l, and b, and d etc. We now write: ------------- | abcd | abcd | ------------- with the left cell being set in F1 and the right in F2; so I'll replace d with an l-over-a-d . Now, let's what would the user expect? ------------- | l | | | abcd | abcd | ------------- ------------- | l | abcd | | abcd | | ------------- I claim that even with _top_ alignment - the user would expect the first option. Why? Because the _mean_lines_ [1] are aligned - the top of the main part of the glyphs. Ascenders are extra; somewhat ornamental. It's the "meat" of the text that needs to be aligned. So, I guess after would expect that: top v-alignment -> alignment of meanlines bottom v-alignment -> alignment of baselines middle v-alignment -> alignment of middle-point between baseline and meanline What is the basis, in principle or historically, to act otherwise? > If one sets highlight color, it will be > clear that the line boxes are aligned. Well, they are, but that's like saying the table cells are aligned. Alignment of cells and boxes doesn't matter much if it does translate into alignment of the text within those boxes. [1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_line -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
