- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:43:58 -0800
- To: "J. King" <mtknight@dark-phantasy.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
- Cc: Robert Koberg <rob@koberg.com>
On 3/7/04 7:12 PM, "J. King" <mtknight@dark-phantasy.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 16:12:56 -0800, Robert Koberg <rob@koberg.com> wrote: > >> >> David Hyatt wrote: >> >>> The text zoom feature does not violate standards in any way. I'm not >>> sure why you think it does. >> >> Because a pixel should mean a pixel. > > If you zoom in on a pixel in a drawing program, it will be larger than one > monitor pixel but still, for all intents and purposes, only -one- pixel. > The same applies here. It's a zoom function that will multiply any value, > regardless of unit. Or, for example, if you *print*, a "1px" pixel typically will translate to 3-4 device pixels on a 300 dpi printer. On Sun, 07 Mar 2004, Robert Koberg <rob@koberg.com> wrote: > Why does CSS call it a pixel when already pixel has a /relatively/ well > known meaning? The /relatively/ well known meaning is that a pixel is not necessarily (often not) a device pixel, as the printing example has demonstrated, since oh, about 20 years ago or so. Tantek P.S. You can blame browser Text Zoom on IE5/Mac, which invented/shipped support for it in March of 2000.
Received on Sunday, 7 March 2004 22:43:54 UTC