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

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

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 07:52:45 -0800
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <9908013C-D627-4D0F-93C3-ECC371DA0E11@gmail.com>
To: Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com>

On Dec 13, 2010, at 11:39 PM, Ambrose LI wrote:

> 2010/12/14 Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net>:
>> That's true only in the simplistic worlds of OS/2, Mac and Windows. The
>> ability to match display device to desktop configuration, resulting in
>> accurate[1] absolute dimensions at the display surface, has been a part of
>> X11 on Linux at least as far back as my experience with it goes, either by
>> default, or as an option. A number of recent Linux distro releases assume 96
>> DPI, while others make no assumption, favoring accuracy, usually by using
>> display dimensions and resolution provided by EDID to calculate DPI
>> automatically and accurately[1]. In any event, not only is it possible for
>> absolute units to be accurate on Linux, it's very common.
> 
> I was in fact shocked to find that dimensions are not accurate on the
> Mac. Besides Adobe software, even the system-provided Preview program
> assumes that the OS knows correct physical dimensions (when in fact it
> doesn't). It is very frustrating to have "actual size" artwork on the
> screen shown at smaller than actual size, and IMHO this is a serious
> bug (considering their target user base) that will only be corrected
> later if not sooner.

I've been using Macs since the 80s, and I don't recall "Actual Size" in any Mac program EVER being accurate. More of a cruel joke that you learn to ignore, really. Since they haven't fixed that by now, I have little confidence that it will ever be fixed.
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 15:53:21 GMT

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