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

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

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:16:45 +0000
Message-ID: <497509DD.5060603@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

Alex Mogilevsky wrote:
> Why do you think it would be broken? 

Because it seems to me that the intention of pixel was to reflect a 
device pixel, for the reasons you gave, so that images reproduced 
without any resampling artifacts.  For normal screens, one expects it 
actually be a device pixel.  That's not sensible for high resolution 
printers, so 1/96th of an inch was chosen as the limiting value for 
device pixels << 1/96th of an inch, based on 800 x 600 displays on 
typical monitors.  High resolution displays are beginning to get to the 
point where it is better to use two device pixels per CSS pixel.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Woolley
> 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.

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 23:17:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:34:22 UTC