- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:55:42 -0500
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
On 1/7/10 1:43 PM, David Singer wrote: > 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 is effectively Jonathan Kew's proposal. > 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. What I wrote was simply a characterization of how Gecko's "page zoom" feature works. It does not claim to be a pixel-for-pixel zoom, nor is it. Then again, neither is Safari's (at least not desktop Safari). Nor Opera's. Nor Chrome's. I don't have IE on hand to test. Try it: open http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page in any of those browsers, then zoom in in any of the above browsers. Observe that the places where line-breaks happen change. So the engine is clearly not doing a pixel-for-pixel zoom but rather a relayout at the same device width and height using a different mapping from CSS lengths to device pixels. Maybe I misunderstood your objection, though? -Boris
Received on Thursday, 7 January 2010 19:12:10 UTC