View Single Post
Old 07-18-2013, 03:41 PM   #15
tshering
Wizard
tshering ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tshering ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tshering ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tshering ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tshering ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tshering ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tshering ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tshering ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tshering ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tshering ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tshering ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,489
Karma: 2914715
Join Date: Jun 2012
Device: kobo touch
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev. Bob View Post
Trouble is, those two CSS statements are equivalent. They both mean, in English, "the total height of a line should be 130% of the font size used on that line." If the font size in a given paragraph is 10 points, that means a line height of 13 points. If there's a 20-point header, its height will be 26 points. That's because an "em" isn't a static value; it always reflects the current font size.
There is supposed to be a difference (cf. for instance here). In the case of { line-height: 1.3em; } child elements inherit the computed value, whereas in case of { line-height: 1.3; } they inherit the ratio that is used for the calculation. I took this for true without testing and thought it may explain what GeoffR reported.
tshering is offline   Reply With Quote