W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > July 2016

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-values] Traditional typographic absolute length units

From: Christoph Päper via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 13:38:26 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-233635096-1468935503-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Unlike teχers, traditional typesetters are probably fine with `72pt` =
 `1in`, at least. 

    calc(3pc + 4.5pt)        calc(3pc + 9pt / 2)        calc(3pc + 3pc
 / 8)        calc(9in / 16)
    p(3, 4.5)     p(3 4.5)      p(3 p 4.5)    p(3pc 4.5pt)
    3-4.5pc       3+4.5pc       3:4.5pc       3,4.5pc       3/4.5pc
       3&4.5pc       3..4.5pc
    3pc-4.5       3pc+4.5       3pc:4.5       3pc,4.5       3pc/4.5
       3pc&4.5       3pc..4.5
    
    3pc&4.5       40pt&10       0in&3.375                   14mm&1.15
     57q&37.5
    3pc4.5        40pt10        0in3.375                    14mm1.15
      57q37.5
    3.375pc       40.5pt        0.5625in      810twip       14.2875mm
     57.15q        14287.5um
    3⅜pc          40½pt         9⅟16in        9⁄16in        9÷16in

The real problem is not this particular traditional syntax, but 
**vulgar fractions** and (irrational) **constants** (like π or τ in 
#309 and ϕ or √2). The former can be done with `calc()` accurately, 
but non-coders are used to a more concise, symbolic syntax, which 
could be done with Unicode characters for the most part. I don’t think
 the `p` syntax alone is worth a grammar change, but vulgar fractions 
and constants might.

Sadly, this is an issue where switching to relative or metric length 
units doesn’t help much.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by Crissov
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/315#issuecomment-233635096 
using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2016 13:38:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:00 UTC