- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:28:24 -0800
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 15, 2010, at 4:13 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> That said, does anyone actually implement 'image-resolution' yet? It >> does seem sort of silly to define resolution units that are just >> inverted length units. We could just use length units instead, and >> avoid the headache I get every time I mentally parse "dppx" (my brain >> insists on first trying to interpret the "dpp" as "device pixels per" >> and then the "x" just makes the whole thing seize up). > > When thinking about resolution, I always think in terms of dpi. It is what printers and other output devices were measured in for as long as I can remember, and how image resolution is set in PhotoShop. I imagine that in other parts of the world (I'm in the US), dpcm might have been more common. So I think the 'dp' part is pretty much a gimme, and 'dppx' flows naturally out of that. All right. I don't have any strong opinion, Christoph's remark just got me thinking. If using resolution units is really natural, then we should keep them. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 01:29:17 UTC