- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 14:44:33 +0200
On Nov 4, 2006, at 08:37, Ian Hickson wrote: > I'm thinking of only allowing integer values, and requiring them to be > equal to the dimensions of the image, if present (and requiring > both to > be present if either is present). Would people be ok with that? Suppose there are desktop systems in the near future that double the pixel density of the display compared to what is common today. Considering the handheld displays Nokia ships, I guess it is only a matter of time for similarly small pixels to appear in desktop-sized panels at affordable prices. Apple already seems to be preparing for this. To render legacy pages, browsers will probably have to define 1 CCS px to be equal to two device pixels and render each image pixel of legacy bitmaps as 2 by 2 device pixels. Now if an author wants to deliver more precision to such new systems while being compatible with legacy systems, the reasonable thing to do is leaving the width and height attributes to values that would make sense for legacy systems and to quadruple the number of samples in the bitmap by doubling its pixel height and width. So I think width and height should not have conformance requirements tied to pixel dimensions of the references image file. They are presentational, but they are such a useful presentational optimization that I think it doesn't make sense to try the get rid of that presentationalism just to comply with a principle. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen at iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 7 November 2006 04:44:33 UTC