View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0003550ScribusFontspublic2016-12-12 18:06
ReporterPLucAuclair Assigned To 
PrioritynormalSeverityfeatureReproducibilityalways
Status acknowledgedResolutionopen 
Product Version1.3.3cvs 
Target VersionFixed in Version 
Summary0003550: Line spacing modes are incorrect, and lacking
DescriptionI think fixed mode is wrong and baseline line might need one or two new cousins.

Fixed shouldn't align with the highest character on top, it should align on the Ascent line, as this causes problems when aligning lines. Then the em size (ascent to descent) should be the font-size (which I think it already is). Then you add leading to it and have your correct line-height.
--See attached image--

Baseline should have a way to set it's height, but as leading (like 2pt).

I also think that it should have a way to align on baseline on the Descent line.
Additional InformationI know this will let some characters go outside a frame when they have ascenders and descenders going outside the limits, but *that is* what you need in fact.
Tagsbaseline, discussion
Patch

Relationships

has duplicate 0008620 closedjghali accuracy lack of text frames baselines 
related to 0003865 closedjghali Lock first line to baseline grid. 

Activities

2006-04-04 00:47

 

font-align.png (15,343 bytes)
font-align.png (15,343 bytes)

2006-04-04 00:54

 

font-align2.png (15,838 bytes)
font-align2.png (15,838 bytes)

PLucAuclair

2006-04-04 00:55

reporter   ~0009609

Re-uploaded the example, v1 was missing something...

avox

2006-04-04 01:26

administrator   ~0009611

I agree with fixed mode using the font's ascent.

Baseline aligns the baseline to the baseline grid. I think that's correct atm.

You also want to align the descent line to the baseline grid??

louisdesjardins

2006-04-04 02:47

developer   ~0009613

>>I also think that it should have a way to align on baseline on the Descent line.

I find this confusing. The diagram is interesting but seems to lack important info. AFAIK, isn't baseline the bottom of the x-height? At least, this is how we look at it for a long time now. I am fully ready to revise my own idea on this with the help of documentation from various sources. Can you please provide them?

I agree "leading" takes it from a different perspective. But we are already decades beyond lead now. Anyhow, ready to read on and to learn. We can never be sure for a very long time, can we?!

PLucAuclair

2006-04-04 05:42

reporter   ~0009614

Last edited: 2006-04-04 05:44

I'm sorry I do lots of things at the same time here so my stuff is sometimes a bit confusing as I don't really take time to organize my thoughts.

About the baseline, I don't actually want to remove the current way of doing, but rather have another option (which I forgot to mention), and have this option use the descent line instead. At the same time I thought to myself that having a way to set leading would be a nice option. Basically, this is typical line-height, but since it's already set in the document properties, it is useless to set it as line-height, and to me the most logical way of doing this is by thinking how they used to do it in lead-fonts, by adding leading. Also this might be used to align the ascent line to the baseline (in the eventuality someone one day might want this).

The current (baseline method) is correct.

I'm not sure if baseline of the type, if it is truly called so (can't remember), is the same as the one on the page. To me it would seem a bit strange though that you would like your descenders, and thus the text itself, to go between 2 grid areas.

If you need any further information it'll be a pleasure to seek it.

cbradney

2006-04-04 06:40

administrator   ~0009616

Changing this to a feature. We have no bug in this area, you simply want more options. More options come with the new text system.

PLucAuclair

2006-05-08 20:06

reporter   ~0011110

I was checking at InDesign's way of doing this, here are their options:
- Ascent
Aligns on the ascent (like in my feature request).

********
-Cap Height (much like current default)[!!!IMPROVEMENT REGARDING WHAT WE HAVE NOW]
Much like what we have now but very much improved. **NOTE** What I find very interesting is that this option takes into account accented characters, so a É won't screw up your formatting, and it's consistent on with every cap letter (I guess they do an average) and on every column, and won't revert to the lowest character when there is no cap (MUCH NEEDED).
********

-Leading (called Baseline in Scribus)
Aligns the baseline of the text with the leading (line-height) applied.

-x-height
Aligns the top of the x-height to the top of the first line.
(not very useful I'd say but seems easy to implement)

-Fixed
Much like Leading, but it align the type baseline to the top of the first line, so you have a whole line over the frame.
(cannot see much use, but it's probably there for a reason)

If you do not implement Ascent, which seems much easier than the described Cap Height, I think we really need to improve what we have now. IMO current options is really not equal to the quality of the rest of the software.

pierremarchand

2008-06-09 21:30

reporter   ~0019828

I would agree. Font ascent offset and linespacing offset are required to have a set of options that give predictable result for the designer.

Kunda

2016-12-12 18:06

updater   ~0042930

@fahad how does this fit in to CTL? Can you weigh in on this?

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2006-04-04 00:47 PLucAuclair New Issue
2006-04-04 00:47 PLucAuclair File Added: font-align.png
2006-04-04 00:54 PLucAuclair File Added: font-align2.png
2006-04-04 00:55 PLucAuclair Note Added: 0009609
2006-04-04 01:26 avox Note Added: 0009611
2006-04-04 01:26 avox Status new => acknowledged
2006-04-04 02:47 louisdesjardins Note Added: 0009613
2006-04-04 05:42 PLucAuclair Note Added: 0009614
2006-04-04 05:44 PLucAuclair Note Edited: 0009614
2006-04-04 06:40 cbradney Note Added: 0009616
2006-04-04 06:40 cbradney Severity major => feature
2006-05-08 20:06 PLucAuclair Note Added: 0011110
2006-05-24 19:29 christoph_s Relationship added related to 0003865
2008-06-09 21:30 pierremarchand Note Added: 0019828
2009-12-06 20:29 jghali Relationship added has duplicate 0008620
2016-05-14 04:11 Kunda Tag Attached: discussion
2016-12-12 18:05 Kunda Tag Attached: baseline
2016-12-12 18:06 Kunda Note Added: 0042930