- From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:16:45 +0000
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Alex Mogilevsky wrote: > Why do you think it would be broken? Because it seems to me that the intention of pixel was to reflect a device pixel, for the reasons you gave, so that images reproduced without any resampling artifacts. For normal screens, one expects it actually be a device pixel. That's not sensible for high resolution printers, so 1/96th of an inch was chosen as the limiting value for device pixels << 1/96th of an inch, based on 800 x 600 displays on typical monitors. High resolution displays are beginning to get to the point where it is better to use two device pixels per CSS pixel. > > -----Original Message----- > From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Woolley > > > Alex Mogilevsky wrote: >> I think this was proposed before, and there are good use cases. >> >> On high resolution monitors, 'px' unit is bigger than device pixel > + (e.g. px=1/96in while device pixel is 1/144in). This results in > > Such an implementation would be broken. Valid values for px on such a > device would be 1/72in or 1/144in. My feeling is that it probably isn't > high enough resolution to step to two device pixels per CSS pixel. -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Monday, 19 January 2009 23:17:59 UTC