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: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:13:05 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTinKQOkTDBQNv=1EFxBgZsQ2Q+CoO5Vo7+E=_FMa@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Christoph Päper
<christoph.paeper@crissov.de> wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr.:
>>
>> The relationship between image pixels and CSS px are defined by the image-resolution property, which defaults to 1dppx (1 dot per px). That is, each image pixel is a CSS px.
>
> Yes, that’‚ a good thing, but the property should default to ‘1px’ and authors should be able to set it to ‘1dot’ (or ‘1mm’ or ‘1in’). That means it should not use new reciprocal units.

The unit used is an editorial issue.  The spec already allows authors
to set the resolution in 'in' or 'cm' using the 'dpi' and 'dpcm'
units.

I'm not sure how you could base the resolution on dots, considering
that you're defining the size of the dots.


That said, does anyone actually implement 'image-resolution' yet?  It
does seem sort of silly to define resolution units that are just
inverted length units.  We could just use length units instead, and
avoid the headache I get every time I mentally parse "dppx" (my brain
insists on first trying to interpret the "dpp" as "device pixels per"
and then the "x" just makes the whole thing seize up).

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 00:13:58 GMT

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