Re: [CSS21] 4.3.2 Lengths (reference pixel?)

On Dec 14, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Brad Kemper wrote:

> On Dec 13, 2010, at 11:39 PM, Ambrose LI wrote:
>> 2010/12/14 Felix Miata <>:
>>> That's true only in the simplistic worlds of OS/2, Mac and Windows. The
>>> ability to match display device to desktop configuration, resulting in
>>> accurate[1] absolute dimensions at the display surface, has been a part of
>>> X11 on Linux at least as far back as my experience with it goes, either by
>>> default, or as an option. A number of recent Linux distro releases assume 96
>>> DPI, while others make no assumption, favoring accuracy, usually by using
>>> display dimensions and resolution provided by EDID to calculate DPI
>>> automatically and accurately[1]. In any event, not only is it possible for
>>> absolute units to be accurate on Linux, it's very common.
>> I was in fact shocked to find that dimensions are not accurate on the
>> Mac. Besides Adobe software, even the system-provided Preview program
>> assumes that the OS knows correct physical dimensions (when in fact it
>> doesn't). It is very frustrating to have "actual size" artwork on the
>> screen shown at smaller than actual size, and IMHO this is a serious
>> bug (considering their target user base) that will only be corrected
>> later if not sooner.
> I've been using Macs since the 80s, and I don't recall "Actual Size" in any Mac program EVER being accurate. More of a cruel joke that you learn to ignore, really. Since they haven't fixed that by now, I have little confidence that it will ever be fixed.

Back in '83 my Mac "Classic" was 72dpi on screen and 72dpi on the Imagewriter. I could do a print screen and put the paper over the tube and get the same result. As soon as they went to external monitors all bets were off. I have yet to see a typical user system come out of the box since then with accurate on screen measurements. Yes, I could calibrate it, and often did, but then all sorts of app UIs broke...


Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 22:17:33 UTC