- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 17:06:45 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Thu, 10 May 2012, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >> That all said, I don't like the "2x" notation. It's declaring "this >> image's resolution is twice that of a normal image". This has two >> problems. For one, we already have a unit that means that - the dppx >> unit. Using "2dppx" is identical to the meaning of "2x". Since >> image-set() is newer than the dppx unit, we should change it to use >> <resolution> instead. > > dppx is pretty ugly. I agree with hober's "2x" design. > >> For two, I'm not sure that it's particularly obvious that when you say >> "2x", you should make sure your image was saved as 196dpi. You have >> to already know what the default resolution is. > > You don't have to. The resolution of the image is ignored. If you don't set your image's resolution appropriately, you'll get unexpected sizing effects. >> As well, I think that values like 300dpi are pretty common, and they >> don't map to integral 'x' values. If people say "screw it" and use >> "3x", this'll be slightly wrong and I think will cause ugly blurring. >> If we make this take <resolution>, people can just use the dpi unit. > > 3.125x isn't particularly difficult to specify. I actually didn't even realize that 300dpi is 3.125 times 96dpi. Regardless, I think being able to specify "300dpi" is easier than using a calculator. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 15:07:40 UTC