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 17:28:24 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimM6=YcHL7vRqfp_gnOJNu+hDF14cd5H4sDRW0x@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2010, at 4:13 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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).
>
> When thinking about resolution, I always think in terms of dpi. It is what printers and other output devices were measured in for as long as I can remember, and how image resolution is set in PhotoShop. I imagine that in other parts of the world (I'm in the US), dpcm might have been more common. So I think the 'dp' part is pretty much a gimme, and 'dppx' flows naturally out of that.

All right.  I don't have any strong opinion, Christoph's remark just
got me thinking.  If using resolution units is really natural, then we
should keep them.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 01:29:17 GMT

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