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 GMT

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