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?

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 23:28:47 GMT

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