W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2012

Re: device-pixel-ratio

From: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:39:28 +0200
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.wdb0n2ka4p7avi@localhost.localdomain>
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:21:04 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  
wrote:

>
> On Apr 25, 2012, at 9:11 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>  
> wrote:
>
>> On 04/25/2012 02:40 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>
>>> There seem to be at least three advantages, if, perhaps, relatively  
>>> minor ones.
>>>
>>> 1) 'device-pixel-ratio: 2' is more readily understandable - ddpx is a  
>>> mysterious abbreviation.
>>> 2) device-pixel-ratio is deployed in existing content (albeit with a  
>>> webkit prefix); declining to standardize it seems likely to increase  
>>> the scope of the prefix problem.
>>> 3) device-pixel-ratio has actual deployment experience showing it is  
>>> usable for its intended purpose.
>>>
>>> In what way is 'resolution: 2ddpx' better?
>>
>> It doesn't add anything new. It uses an existing mechanism to do the  
>> same thing.
>
> I don't follow closely, so I may be misinformed, but isn't the dppx unit  
> something new? It looks like it wasn't present in the Sept 11 Working  
> Draft of Values & Units.

I am not completely sure when dppx was introduced, but it is not needed
for the functionality.

"resolution: 192dpi" is completely synonymous to "resolution: 2dppx"

The later one is more readable though.

  - Florian
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 17:39:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:52 GMT