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

Re: device-pixel-ratio

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:27:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDARCffqhnKm3KF5y+3v6BdkEyKZQ7xF6GMjndgocxG_hA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:21 AM, 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.

At the time it was only defined in Image Values, as that is where it
was introduced.

It's been in the V&U Editor's Draft for some time, and is present in
the current Working Draft (published in early March).  Why are you
referring to the Sep 2011 WD?

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 23:28:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:35:08 UTC