- From: Mikko Rantalainen <mira@cc.jyu.fi>
- Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 10:17:17 -0500 (EST)
- To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
David Woolley / 2004-02-14 15:29: >>same as 13mm for the same reasons that 1.3 * 10 might not equal >>13 on a binary computer. > > Doing arithmetic in decimal doesn't seem a great hardship. If you want > to speed it up internally, for repeated uses, you can always convert to > rational binary (13/10). I don't think the binary presentation is the problem but the fact that document authors (rightly?) expect every element that has identical 'width' to render identically. For example, if document author has 10 elements of 1mm each side by side followed by another element on the next line that is 10mm (or 1cm) wide and display's resolution is 8 pixels/cm, how should the elements be rendered? If every one of the 10 small elements is colored black and white, alternative, should the rendered output have different combined width for those 10 elements in contrast to the one big element despite the fact that both withds should be the same. Or should the big element be not equal to 1cm or 10mm. Or should the big element be 1cm and the combined width of small elements be 1cm (=8 pixels) and some of the small elements are not visible at all, resulting to ugly banding in the color pattern. The rendering engine might use floating point numbers for all positioning and if one "1mm" element ends up rendered zero pixel width and another "1mm" element ends up rendered one pixel width, so be it. Alternatively, the rendering engine could supersample, but it would eat very much CPU power for the dimishing increase in quality. -- Mikko
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 10:08:49 UTC