W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2004

Re: [css3-page] LCWD issue 22 -- [22] Section 3.3.2 <length>

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:24:10 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <200402172324.i1HNOAa01824@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: www-style@w3.org

> precisely what should NOT happen if pixels are implemented correctly.  In CSS
> "pixel" does not refer to a dot but rather to a solid angle in the field of
> view.  Therefore a "300px" image should have the same physical dimensions (as

That's not my understanding.  My understanding is that a pixel is a real
pixel at typical CRT resolutions (so that bit mapped images align on
pixels) but is based on a arbitrary number of pixels per inch on high
resolution mediums.  The resolution used to be 72dpi, but is drifting up
towards the 120dpi that is the nominal resolution of 1024 x 768 CRTs.

The idea being that low resolutions don't produce additional quantisation
errors when handling bit-mapped images, and allow sizes to be implied by
the image, and that high resolutions produce a similar layout to that
on the screen (it would be better for people to use @media groups to
give precise sizes for printed images, but few will).
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2004 02:21:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:11 UTC