- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:43:51 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
fantasai wrote: > > I always thought it was in the spec, but it seems to be an unwritten > assumption, that CSS 'px' units should map to a whole number of device > pixels. The examples in the spec all assume rounding to a whole number > of device pixels. And while I don't think we should absolutely require > this (I know on printers defining "device pixel" is not straightforward), > I think it should be recommended as something to aim for. > > Proposed change: > > Replace > "the user agent should rescale pixel values" > with > "the user agent should rescale pixel units to a different whole number > of device pixels" That is not feasible I think. The train have left the station already. (CSS px happens to be equal 1/96 of inch[1]. So it is not a physical unit but rather logical one. The same ratio is observed for HTML pixel units in all major UAs) <table width="800"> and <div style="width:800px"> fit almost exactly on printing paper of letter format (8.5in == 816px). All UA's print html this way. If to rescale pixel units then it means width:800px should be rendered differently on user's printer. How it supposed to work? > > OR > > Insert before > "It is recommended that the reference pixel be..." > the sentence > "It is recommended that the pixel unit refer to the whole number of > device pixels that best approximates the reference pixel." > I'd suggest to introduce new length unit - physical pixel - that is "naked" number (without any special unit designator). [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units -- Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Saturday, 22 March 2008 07:46:35 UTC