- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 16:22:18 -0700
- To: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2012 20:07:53 +0200, Christoph Päper > <christoph.paeper@crissov.de> wrote: >> Of course, all the reciprocal length units are plain stupid and >> unnecessary – and always have been. >> >> image-resolution: <count> [ / <length> ]?; >> image-resolution: 1dot; /* with 1px default */ >> image-resolution: 300dot/1in; >> image-resolution: 100dot / 1mm; > > I wasn't there when you initially suggested that, but I think I like it. It > may be too late to introduce something like that, but I wouldn't mind being > proven wrong about this. The 'image-resolution' property was reverse-implemented based on what already existed, so we can't remove what exists, but we can always add more syntax later. However, I don't think adding ratios for expressing resolution is a good thing unless we do it everywhere. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 23:23:09 UTC