W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2008

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

From: Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:20:30 -0700
Message-Id: <BF67B532-EF4F-4630-9987-927C31E7A3EA@comcast.net>
Cc: Felix Miata <mrmazda@ij.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: "Paul Nelson (ATC)" <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>
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  

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?
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2008 06:21:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:35 UTC