W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2014

Re: Why not max/min-font-size? & extend them to other properties of sizes

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:55:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDDYuSq_U7iviUsfi4XxdvA1_yjEGeq80YykXPsNTn8TQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rafał Pietrak <rafal@ztk-rp.eu>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Rafał Pietrak <rafal@ztk-rp.eu> wrote:
> W dniu 17.06.2014 22:29, Tab Atkins Jr. pisze:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Rafał Pietrak <rafal@ztk-rp.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is it possible to think of a measure, which is proportional to the
>>> angular
>>> size of a feature at hand? according to: "as viewed at normal conditions
>>> for
>>> a particular display"?
>>
>> That's what 'px' is.  And for that matter, what the other absolute
>> units are, as well, since they're defined as a fixed ratio with the px
>> unit; 1in is defined as 96px, etc.
>>
>
> px ... yes, I've read specs. But you really should see the tiny-winy pages
> on my HTC smarphone.

You appear to be talking about the default zooming that is done to
display webpages reasonably when they're not designed for small
screens.  That's a completely different thing.

> px do not work there at all.
>
> I'd quess, that it's because px are "ill defined". It's define as "smallest
> visible feature". Thus 1px lines *are visible* on my HTC just fine. The
> problem is that 20px "font-size", while perfectly readable on my notebook,
> is microscopic and unreadable on my HTC.

That is not the definition of px, this is:
<http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-values/#absolute-lengths>. px is
literally defined as an arc of visual angle.

> Then again, media query (used on responsive pages) check actual px (count)
> of the viewport, not "normalized" px.

The zooming that mobile devices do is separate from this stuff.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2014 21:55:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:22 UTC