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

Re: [css3-values] [css3-images] no units for default 'image-resolution'

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:09:10 -0700
Message-Id: <D179DE73-54DF-4475-8BC7-E34D6F8D7045@gmail.com>
Cc: "shelby@coolpage.com" <shelby@coolpage.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: "shelby@coolpage.com" <shelby@coolpage.com>
On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:30 PM, "Shelby Moore" <shelby@coolpage.com> wrote:

> DPI is an ambiguous term and is discouraged:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch
> 
> It is advised instead to use PPI.
> 
> Thus I suggest you change 'dppx' to 'pppx'.

It is only ambiguous if we don't define it well, since CSS properties get their definitions from the module specs, not from wikipedia. That said, we try to use familiar and intuitive words for the property names, as much as we can. 

'pppx' is not especially familiar and intuitive, and expanding that out in my mind to "pixels per pixel" just makes it seem weird and confusing. "Dpi", on the other hand, is familiar to designers, especially those with a print background like myself. This leads to "dppx" to be pretty easily intuited for designers and other authors working with CSS px. 


> Also 'image resolution' is ambiguous:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution#Pixel_resolution
> 
> I think you need to change this to 'image-spatial-resolution'.

Brevity of property names is another important consideration when picking a name for a property, not just accuracy. 
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 2010 21:10:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:33 GMT