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

Re: [css3-images][css4-images] Replace 'dppx' with 'x'?

From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 15:07:55 +0200
Message-Id: <BCC75F50-E470-44FE-ABDD-1E6B79A76A6E@crissov.de>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr.:
> 
> "dpi" is a simple and easy-to-understand unit.

Ouch.

 – People confuse “dots per inch”, “pixels per inch”, “lines per inch” all the time.
 – To many, “DPI” seems to matter in bitmap files – why else could they set one?
 – The symbol ‘dpi’ is as opaque as ‘psi’ or ‘mph’ to everyone used to metric units.
   That’s basically everyone. Hence *‘ddpx’, *‘dpx’ etc.
 – It sounds like a compound of base units, but it isn’t since ‘dot’ is none,
   and would have to be ‘1/in’ or ‘in⁻¹’ instead, if it followed established usage.
 – Nobody has a mental image of reciprocal lengths, but everybody gets lengths.
 – It’s hard to measure directly.

> Dude, you're arguing that "dpi" is a dumb unit.

Yes, but more importantly that using it as a model for even more units (‘dpcm’, ‘dppx’) is even dumber.

> I pointed out that it's used plenty in real life,

Many things are and it means nothing for the design of CSS.

> There's nothing wrong with "dpi",

There’s everything wrong with ‘dpi’.

> and there's nothing theoretically wrong with a "dppx" unit.

So why no ‘dppt’, ‘dppc’, ‘dpem’, ‘dpex’, ‘dpmm’ etc., too?

Without inversion, everyone was still free to choose the existing length unit that best fit their needs and customs.

> This thread is solely about the naming of the unit.

I tried to explain that changing the name would be fixing symptoms, not causes.
Received on Monday, 28 May 2012 13:08:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:54 GMT