Re: [CSS21] [css3-values] px and device pixels

That sounds like a good case for media queries on resolution.

As an author I would be unlikely to specify something as a device  
pixel instead of px, because it seems the main result would be to  
have really, really unpredictable print layouts that did not look as  
I intended because they did not scale well.

But I might write some extra rules in a media query for a higher  
resolution device to try to make the design work well under those  
conditions.


On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote:

> 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?