- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 17:44:04 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>, www-style Mailing List <www-style@w3.org>
fantasai wrote: > > Brad Kemper wrote: >> >> On Mar 22, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Brad Kemper wrote: >> >>>> I'd suggest to introduce new length unit - physical pixel >>>> >>>> - that is "naked" number (without any special unit designator). >>> >>> That would result in thicknesses that are vastly different when >>> printed than they are on screen (about a hundred times smaller in my >>> case). As an author, I can't see much use for that. >> >> I'll rescind this last statement. I can see use for it in a print only >> style sheet, in limited circumstances where I know what the dpi of the >> device is. But I'd be happier if I could just specify a 1/4 pixel line >> for a printer and have it rounded to 19 pixels on a 9600 dpi printer. >> I'm not sure if this actually happens in all browsers or not. > > Fractional 'px' units are allowed. :) Sure, why not? 'Bit' is waiting for revision by CSS people too. > I'm not sure whether 0.25px will show up on a 96dpi device, but it > should show up on a 9600 dpi printer. Can we just declare that for @media raster 1px is always a device pixel? For devices of other architecture 1px is 1/96 of inch. I think that @media [queries] will allow to cover sizing for other types of output devices, e.g. vector or printer. -- Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Sunday, 23 March 2008 00:46:40 UTC