W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2011

[css3-images] Is the dppx unit needed?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 12:41:08 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=Yj9KzZWavvgrA4zKQoVZXqJ66Kw@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
I'm rewriting the section on the <resolution> type in the Images spec
<http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#resolution-units> to actually
explain what the unit does right now.  While writing an example, I was
struck by the fact that the dppx unit seems unnecessary, given that we
now have a guaranteed 96:1 ratio of 'px' per 'in'.

Everything I know of that talks about image resolution uses dpi or
dpcm only.  I don't think I've ever seen anything equivalent to dppx.
Plus, 'dppx' is a hard unit to pronounce.  ^_^

I suspect that dppx was created back when we couldn't actually say
that images were 96dpi by default, because the CSS 'in' wasn't tied to
a specific number of CSS 'px'.  Could I just drop it, and set the
initial value of 'image-resolution' to 96dpi?

Received on Monday, 23 May 2011 19:41:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:46 UTC