- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 21:30:27 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On May 23, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > [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) ? DPI and its metric cousin are good enough for me. I suppose that since dppx = dpi/96, someone maybe would want a non-fractional result, in which case dppx could make that easier to pick the right number. But I don't think that it is too big a deal to just do the math in that case and pick something suitable.
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 04:30:58 UTC