W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2009

RE: [css3-values] new editor's draft (and [css3-box])

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 12:32:27 -0800
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7C2F64B551D8664AAD94A28DAC37D0206B5678CC71@NA-EXMSG-C103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I think this was proposed before, and there are good use cases.

On high resolution monitors, 'px' unit is bigger than device pixel (e.g. px=1/96in while device pixel is 1/144in). This results in proportional scaling (zoom) of all content, and scaling normally applies to everything (including intrinsic sizes).

However if the site is a photographer's portfolio, the artist will likely want his or her pictures to be rendered at optimal resolution (pixel-to-pixel), and they probably have the originals in enormous resolution so they can provide higher resolution images for high resolution displays (and they can know when to pick high resolution originals, e.g. from media query).

Currently there isn’t a good way to declaratively say that a particular image is to be rendered directly at screen pixels and not be affected by zoom. A device pixel unit would be a good way to do it. Also, an option to not zoom intrinsic size would help in same scenario (that would belong to box model).

-----Original Message-----
From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Håkon Wium Lie
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 9:41 AM
To: Christoph Päper
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [css3-values] new editor's draft (and [css3-box])


Christoph Päper wrote:

 >    pel  device pixel

Use case?
Received on Monday, 19 January 2009 20:33:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:15 GMT