W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2003

Re: Length unit relative to media width

From: GS <junkmail.gs@c2i.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:04:06 +0100
Message-ID: <000f01c2d820$0be7f820$7b59d8c1@edda>
To: <www-style@w3.org>
John Lewis wrote on  Wedensday  19 Feb 2003 at  05:07:

>It would be slightly more useful if an integer could be input
>directly. The advantage is you could use nonstandard screen resolution
>widths (like 666).

Actually, I dont think there normally is a need for designing a website 
on non-standard resolutions. This system would be abel to scale 
adequately for those few  users that have an nonstandard resolution.

>> example:
>> H2 {   font-size: 36 sw12;  }

>Also, this means we could avoid compatibility problems by using a new
>property: screen-width, or something like that. For example:
>h2{font-size:36px;screen-width:1200px}

This might be an good idea. My intention was that this could be used 
as a general length unit, to be used everywhere, not only on font-size.

Your proposal of a new unt screen-width might be used like this:
body{ screen-width:1200px; }

Meaning: 
All px units inside body should be interpreted 
relative to a screen resolution of 1200px. 
If the actual screen resolution for instance is 800px,
then all px sizes should be recalculated  as  (800/1200)  px;

>Would it be more useful for implementers to scale with respect to the
>screen width, screen height,

My opinion is that a reference to width would be most useful, as
it normally is preferred to avoid horisontal scrolling.

It would be completely wrong to use both versions, like:
body{screen-width:1200px; screen-height:800px}
This would be ambigeous if the width/height ratio is different.

Gaute Sandvik
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 09:10:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:19 GMT