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

Re: [css3-values] Physical length units

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:13:35 -0800
Message-ID: <4F419E3F.9090300@jumis.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: www-style@w3.org
On 2/19/2012 4:53 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 2/19/12 3:37 PM, Lea Verou wrote:
>> Of course not. Zooming is zooming
>
> That's a nonsensical statement.  In practice, I believe there are at 
> least 3 fundamentally different zooming implementations on the market 
> that have quite different behavior in various situations.

I'd just like the spec to be clear. I don't know how to hang the words 
on this one.
The consensus seems to be that truemm should scale when CSS pixels are 
scaled.

It would be weird to have them stay the same size, it'd be like 
position: fixed, but for size. Funky stuff.


>> want to have the same size in all screens (and we usually do).
> Any kind of length, really! Font-sizes, widths, heights, anything we
>
> If you want a font to be the same physical height on a tablet, a 
> phone, and a laptop, you're doing it wrong.  They have three different 
> viewing distances!
>
> If this is the use case people want "real" physical units for, that's 
> the best argument I have ever heard for NOT having such units.

Misuse of technical features shouldn't bar the rest of us from progress. 
I believe there are sufficient reasons to have a truemm. Can we move the 
"mm" and family out, and the "truemm" metrics in.

I don't think we're in danger of people making fonts "too small" on the 
desktop, as they mostly develop there. I mean, they make them too small, 
but not because they were only testing on a phone.

I've got more issues on mobile, where companies are kind enough to 
disable zoom, making it so I can't magnify the page easily.
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 01:13:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:50 GMT