On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>wrote: > However if the site is a photographer's portfolio, the artist will likely > want his or her pictures to be rendered at optimal resolution > (pixel-to-pixel), and they probably have the originals in enormous > resolution so they can provide higher resolution images for high resolution > displays (and they can know when to pick high resolution originals, e.g. > from media query). If they're using media queries to pick the image file, then why do they need a device pixel unit? They should just specify a fixed px size for the image in the page, set background-size:100%, and use media queries to pick a 1x, 2x, 3x etc resolution file. We probably should have a media query value that describes the device-pixel-to-CSS-pixel ratio being used by the user agent, to make that approach work optimally. I think that would be a much better solution for this use case. Currently there isn't a good way to declaratively say that a particular > image is to be rendered directly at screen pixels and not be affected by > zoom. A device pixel unit would be a good way to do it. Also, an option to > not zoom intrinsic size would help in same scenario (that would belong to > box model). > Having a unit that is unaffected by zoom would be a very bad idea IMHO. Zoom needs to work reliably, partly for accessibility reasons, and I wouldn't want it to be too easily broken. Rob -- "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]
Received on Monday, 19 January 2009 21:55:55 UTC