- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:26:29 -0800
- To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Tuesday 2010-01-05 17:45 +0000, Alex Mogilevsky wrote: > For the record, IE treats “pt” the way you propose for a number of > versions already. At this time there is no physical units in IE > (that is there is no unit that doesn’t grow or shrink with zoom) . This discussion isn't about whether the units grow or shrink with zoom, though. I think we all accept that zoom is something that happens after we've processed the meanings of length units, so that it zooms all lengths. > New units have been proposed that would be defined as strictly > physical (I believe somebody has proposed “dpx” for “display > pixel”). Even the proposed physical units (e.g., all but pt and pc, if we go with that proposal) would respond to zoom, as I think should any unit for display pixels. The issue here is what the meaning of a 'pt' is at a zoom of 1, and whether the number of display pixels in a 'pt' should depend on the physical size of the display (in cases other than where the size of the display causes the number of CSS pixels per device pixel to change) or whether it should have a hard-coded relationship to CSS pixels. (So the relevant question for IE behavior is whether it honors the settings in Windows preferences that set the dpi to be used for font sizes.) -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 03:47:14 UTC