Just to add to the confusion (well, actually, i hope i don't!) - as Angie said in the blog this morning, I have a long rise and a short waist.
I'd never realized that I had a short waist until I did Imogen's body proportions exercise. It shocked the heck out of me.
As a matter of fact, because of my short waist, technically I am not "long in the torso" as I had always supposed -- OR "short in the leg." Technically, I am even.
BUT - because I"m quite short in one area, I'm proportionately long in the other, and hence I need a higher rise in trousers.
This is why Malina and I, at 5'4", often do better in petites jackets, dresses, and shirts.
But in my case, anyway, not always. For instance, I fit BR petites better than their regulars (for the top body). And I CAN wear Ann Taylor petites, too, especially jackets, especially if I size up (for my shoulders). But actually, taking the lowest possible size in regulars was a bit better at Ann Taylor than sizing up in petite.
Sveta, I haven't worn the Editors so I don't know, but I am going to hazard a guess. They may be cut with some looseness over the thigh area. This is a tradtional problem area for me, in addition to the rise. My thighs are somewhat narrower these days but still quite muscular, and besides the rise issue, that can be a cause of whiskering and discomfort in trousers. Hence the appeal of a slightly slouchy or baggy fit. It glides over those areas and doesn't make them seem to bump out.
What I've learned is that at my medium short height with a longish rise, I can't ever wear petite pants unless I size way up. And sometimes, that can be a good idea -- especially if I am going for a slightly slouchy look.
Regular pants are a much better fit in the rise -- but will always need some hemming.
