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

Re: thoughts on non-compliant browsers

From: Tantek «elik <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>
Message-ID: <BC712BE5.37B6B%tantek@cs.stanford.edu>

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 GMT

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