- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 15:54:18 -0500
- To: "BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1)" <jim.bigelow@hp.com>
- Cc: ernestcline@mindspring.com, W3C CSS List <www-style@w3.org>
> Points and picas are units of absolute length rather than relative units. > The other relative unit, px (pixel) is device dependent. Images printed in > a 300 dot per inch device may not be the same size as one rendered on a 600 > dpi device. The same pitfall of device dependence holds for specifying the > page size in pixels. Actually, if I understand the definition of "pixel" in CSS correctly, that is precisely what should NOT happen if pixels are implemented correctly. In CSS "pixel" does not refer to a dot but rather to a solid angle in the field of view. Therefore a "300px" image should have the same physical dimensions (as measured with a ruler) no matter what the medium, as long as the viewing distance is held constant (modulo the possily low resolution of the imaging device, actually). This is not a problem with desktops yet, since they almost all have basically the same DPI. But with the appearance of 200+ dpi LCD displays on the market will expose the fact many implementations do _not_ in fact implement CSS pixel units correctly and should hopefully lead to said implementations being corrected (for the simple reason that on such a display a CSS implementation which directly maps pixels to screen dots will show all images 1/2 to 1/3 of the size they really should be, and the discrepancy will be glaringly obvious). Boris -- A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history, with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila.
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2004 15:54:26 UTC