RE: [CSS21] [css3-values] px and device pixels from Paul Nelson (ATC) on 2008-03-26 (www-style@w3.org from March 2008)

From: Paul Nelson (ATC) <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:34:28 -0700
To: Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>, Felix Miata <mrmazda@ij.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D92F7E6A79E88B4684BFC067AE15477D1653D3AD75@NA-EXMSG-S702.segroup.winse.corp.mic>

I originally raise the issue of 'pixel' definition because many handheld devices are 131dpi, 196dpi, or greater.

It seems funny to me to say that a handheld device should be 96 pixels when there is a capability for more.

Paul

From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Brad Kemper
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:09 PM
To: Felix Miata
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [CSS21] [css3-values] px and device pixels

On Mar 25, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Felix Miata wrote:

On 2008/03/25 18:11 (GMT) David Woolley apparently typed:

I'd suggest to introduce new length unit - physical pixel

- that is "naked" number (without any special unit designator).

Conflicts with use of naked numbers for line-height!

Maybe apx or ap for application px or adjusted px or spx or sp for scaled px.

What exactly is the use case for this?

Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2008 04:35:15 UTC