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
    3pc4.5        40pt10        0in3.375                    14mm1.15
    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 
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