395RE: [XSL-FO] em
- May 14, 2001At 06:38 14-05-2001, Joshua Kimmel wrote:
>If that's true about using the em, that it doesn't change based on the font<confusion amount="more"/>
>sizes with in my fo document, then that's cool.
An em-spec'd measurement can't change *while viewing* a PDF, because the
font size can't change. When formatting a document using XSL, 1 em will
always be the current font size. It won't *change* as such, over time, but
1 em will mean different lengths in different FOs, depending on the font
size in use for that FO.
>My old method was to measure the width of the "M" in whatever font manually,Ah. An average character width, unless you're using a fixed-pitch
>then code it in as a variable, and then just multiply by it wherever I
>needed to maintain a size of say exactly 60 characters in the specified
typeface, is not going to be 1 em. It will vary based on the face itself;
a good way to take the measure is to type out the lowercase alphabet in
that face and measure it.
>Additionally, I haven't found anything that says that the current use of theI believe Tony's quote from the spec fulfilled that. Out of curiousity:
>em unit is equal to the fonts current size.
where were you looking?
>CSS books still claims its useSection 4.3.2 of CSS 2 says "em: the 'font-size' of the relevant font";
>as being equal to the M of the current font, and fop's support for the em
>unit doesn't hold up to that either.
section 6.1 of CSS 1 says much the same. If books about CSS disagree with
the spec, they're wrong. In any case, we're dealing with XSL, which
addresses a slightly different domain from CSS, and expectations based on
CSS may prove misleading.
Christopher R. Maden, XML Consultant
DTDs/schemas - conversion - ebooks - publishing - Web - B2B - training
<URL: http://crism.maden.org/consulting/ >
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>