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

RE: [css3-images] Is the dppx unit needed?

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 03:30:36 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F0178290276D1@TK5EX14MBXC297.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
[Tab Atkins:]
> 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?
> 
> ~TJ
I was going to ask as the dppx unit seemed to be a way to redefine CSS pixels.
What was(were) the use-case(s) ?

Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 03:31:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:40 GMT