- From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:29:42 +0200
- To: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Christoph Päper schreef: > Actually I think it would have been a valid option to make 'px' the > device's pixel, like many people assume anyway, and instead allow > angular units for relative lengths, representing the visual angle of > the user. For example: I disagree. To give an example to illustrate, on e.g. an MSX computer, there are screenmodes which have pixels which are not angular at all. Among the possible screen resolutions are 512 x 212 and 256 x 424 (on a regular 4:3 TV). These will result in non-square pixels (they are twice as high as they are wide and vice versa). Treating ‘px’ units as device pixels for those is unacceptable, it would distort the image unacceptably too much, they need to be compensated for instead by saying that e.g. 1px is 2 device pixels horizontally, or half a device pixel vertically, etc. Also, pixels aren’t device pixels anyway - when the dots per inch are too high, their size is a multiple of device pixels. Additionally, consider a regular 768 x 576 resolution on a widescreen TV. Instead of just stretching everything, I think it may be more desirable to compensate for the different aspect ratio. However, a safe margin is desirable, so that pixels are still pixels no matter whether they are used on a VGA, NTSC or PAL display (while they are only truly square on - most - VGA displays). ~Grauw
Received on Saturday, 30 July 2005 18:29:48 UTC