- From: Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 15:21:52 -0500
- To: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, robert@ocallahan.org, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>, Melinda Grant <Melinda.Grant@gmx.com>
2010/1/5 Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>: > > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:45 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> > wrote: >> >> Robert O'Callahan wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 6:45 AM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com >>> <mailto:alexmog@microsoft.com>> wrote: >>> > Robert O'Callahan wrote in >>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jan/0058.html> >>> > > My understanding from a conversation I had on #webkit is that >>> Webkit >>> > > avoids the problem by treating 1pt as 4/3px regardless of the >>> display >>> > > DPI. I think we probably need to do this in Gecko for Web >>> compatibility >>> > > reasons, and so for the sake of honesty in Web specifications, I >>> > > propose that the definition of pt in CSS be altered accordingly >>> > >>> > For the record, IE treats “pt” the way you propose for a number of >>> > versions already. >>> >>> Thanks for the info! Then we should definitely change the spec. >> >> What about locking things the other way, 1px == 3/4pt? That seems >> less drastic, because at least you're keeping the 1pt = 1/72in. > > That is indeed the definition of a point (1/72 of an inch, either > approximately or exactly, depending on where you're coming from). It's > always so exciting when word definitions need to be revised from their > historical meaning to match somebody's implementation. Either way it feels wrong. When I write px I think of exact alignment with image pixels. But I suppose that's the lesser evil of the two =P -- cheers, -ambrose
Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 20:22:25 UTC