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 14:41:45 -0800
To: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7C2F64B551D8664AAD94A28DAC37D0206B5678CD8E@NA-EXMSG-C103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Why do you think it would be broken? 

-----Original Message-----
From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Woolley
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 2:29 PM
To: www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [css3-values] new editor's draft (and [css3-box])

Alex Mogilevsky wrote:
> 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

Such an implementation would be broken.  Valid values for px on such a
device would be 1/72in or 1/144in.  My feeling is that it probably isn't
high enough resolution to step to two device pixels per CSS pixel.

+ proportional scaling (zoom) of all content, and scaling normally applies
+ to everything (including intrinsic sizes).
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.

Received on Monday, 19 January 2009 22:42:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:23 UTC