- From: Benjamin Hardcastle <benjaminh@epic.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 10:16:15 -0000
- To: <www-style@w3.org>
> I've always disagreed with this definition of pixel. It seems to > demand that the browser know how far away the reader is. All of a > sudden if you use a projector, the definition of pixel may change. > But not the apparent size to the users eye. This is why there is an angle in the definition. I don't like the idea of this being called a "pixel" since that has a definition in terms of hardware, and a pixels size is dependent on how fancy the technology is to make the viewing device... > A better definition *if you ask me* is: a px unit is 1pt rounded to > the nearest whole number of physical pixels on the device. > If you ask me, a pixel is a pixel. 50 pixels is 50px. Think of arranging text with a graphic. Your graphic is 20 pixels high, and you want your text to be the same height... Having a variable and non-pixel dependent definition of a pixel is a world of pain and confusion, and I would be miffed in the extreme if this ever came about. Benjamin
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 1998 05:21:33 UTC