- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:43:42 -0800
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
(personal opinion) It's fairly clear that physical measurements apply to material that is at 'normal reading distance' (and I bet there is an ISO standard for that), or is back-calculated from its actual distance to what size it would be at normal reading distance. That's why powerpoint works on projectors; if you are at the distance from the screen such that the screen and a piece of paper held at reading distance subtend about the same view angle, it all works. Perhaps this should apply to all physical units: 1in means that distance that subtends the same angle at the eye as 1in would at the standard viewing distance, and so on. This fixes glasses-mounted displays, and so on, as well. We can deem that computer displays are also at normal viewing distance, I suspect. If manufacturers want to ship small devices that they deem are necessarily viewed close-up, and thus have a scaling factor also 'built in', that would also be permitted. Zoom means making things bigger or smaller than nominal, so a zoom of 2x means that if the page asks for 1in, that distance subtends 2in at the nominal viewing distance. But see below for fonts. On Jan 7, 2010, at 7:43 , Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 1/7/10 10:38 AM, Ambrose LI wrote: >> I don't understand why we are stressing the importance of physical >> accuracy in projections. Do people expect units to measure as spec'd >> when projected? > > I have no idea, but the spec says they should at the moment. Just like it says they should measure as spec'd on an iPhone. Or on an eye-glasses display. Or a contact lens display. That's what makes the physical units physical. > > That's also what makes them clearly nonsense for anything where you don't control the device; 12pt font on a contact lens display would be ... interesting. > >> When we spec 12pt on PowerPoint does it result in 12pt type on the projection >> screen which looks like a tiny dot 15 ft away? No. > > That's precisely how Webkit and IE treat pt in general and how Robert is proposing Gecko treat pt. It's a clear violation of what the CSS spec says to do with pt at the moment. > What you write below does not sound right at all, to me. A zoomed version of a page should be just that, zoomed; not re-styled as if the designer had asked for fonts at twice the design size. > > On Jan 7, 2010, at 9:23 , Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> I would hope not. A UA should be choosing the design size most closely corresponding to actual rendered size, as much as possible. For example, if you have a page that says it wants 12px fonts and it's zoomed to 2x in Gecko, Gecko will use the 24px font instead of scaling the 12px font. >> > David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 7 January 2010 18:44:16 UTC