W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2010

Re: [CSS21] 4.3.2 Lengths (reference pixel?)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:10:35 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTim94OH_D4rmOCEfO5dFYGfS8wAz1r2m-YPSW58L@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net> wrote:
> On 13/12/2010 19:49, Anton Prowse wrote:
>> On 13/12/2010 15:21, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote:
>>> Within CSS is is clearly incompatible with previous recommendations
>>> and therefore in fact with all currently existing documents using CSS
>>> with such units (whatever authors assume, how this should be presented
>>> or not).
>>
>> Again, a valid argument which the WG must surely have taken on board.
>> (For me personally, this is the strongest argument in favour of
>> preserving the original units.)
>
> As is clear from my posts, it's also the strongest argument in favour of
> adopting the /new/ units!  It all depends on how many authors were using the
> original units correctly as opposed to incorrectly.  My point was that it's
> a valid concern that authors who were using them correctly now find the rug
> pulled from under them.

Those authors have never truly had good physical units.  I don't
recall the precise details of which browsers do what, but more than
one browser, at least, has done the "1in = 96px" thing for a long
time.

So there never was a way to do it "correctly" because the physical
units never were truly physical, in practice.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 13 December 2010 19:11:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:35 GMT