Re: Media queries edits

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
> (why is this not on www-style?)

Yes, it should be.  I'll kick it over.  For the aid of people just
seeing this post publicly, I didn't trim the quote.


> On Thursday, February 16, 2012, 4:56:15 PM, Brad wrote:
>
> BK> On Feb 14, 2012, at 6:27 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>
>>> - RESOLVED: In section 4.11 ('resolution'), append after the first paragraph
>>>            "For printers, this corresponds to the screening resolution (the
>>>             resolution for printing dots of arbitrary color)."
>
> BK> I'm a little uncomfortable with that wording. It seems like we
> BK> should include something about lines per inch, instead of just
> BK> "dots of arbitrary color", for printers that use halftoning.
>
> That is what the screening resolution means, although it should also cover printers that use stochastic as well as fixed pattern screening, and printers such as dye sublimation which do have continuous tone dots.
>
> It is the resolution at which one can display a continuous tone image.
>
> BK>  A
> BK> halftone screen has lines per inch (sometimes different for each
> BK> component CMYK color, as I recall), but can still also have laser
> BK> dots to form the shape of each halftone dot.
>
> The resolution, for CSS, is the screening frequency (e.g. 175 per inch, for quality magazines) not the native dot frequency (e.g. 2880 dots per inch, for inkjets). But those dots are single, opaque dots of ink and cannot, by themselves, display an arbitrary color.
>
> BK>  The size of the laser
> BK> dot is still somewhat important to print designers, because if the
> BK> laser dot resolution is too low then you can't get smooth
> BK> gradations without increasing the size of the halftone dot (this
> BK> used to be a bigger issue when desktop printers were commonly 300-400dpi).
>
> Yes, I agree there can be a need to know both. But after the discussion at the f2f, the WG decided to only expose the screening frequency

More accurately, we decided that the screening frequency was a closer
match for what "resolution" means on monitors native dot frequency.
We agreed unofficially that the native dot frequency is a useful thing
to expose as well in the next level of MQ.

> BK> I know you did what the WG resolved on, but I think it needs
> BK> more. I don't have any improved wording for you at this time though.

~TJ

Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 16:37:57 UTC