- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 09:15:33 -0800
- To: Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style@w3.org
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com> wrote: > None of which mitigates the fact that physical measures are wrong in CSS. > > I know this isn't fixable whilst keeping backward compatibility. I > also think it's a pretty crazy position to be in. > > Oh to be able to declare a version of CSS to author against. We'd be > able to fix these inconsistencies. > > On 19 February 2012 15:54, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: >> On 2/19/12 9:30 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> >>> The fact that cm etc don't result in those units is what is super >>> confusing. Why in the world would any author expect 1cm to *not* be >>> 1cm, and know to use 1trucm instead? >> >> >> They may not. But they expect 12pt to be 16px, not actually 12pt. They >> expect this because that's what every single word processor they used did >> and what most browsers did. > > And how many people, in the wild, are using pt for screen CSS at the moment? > Serious question by the way. I'd have imagined very few (I've never > come across it). Lots. It's largely people using the pt unit for fonts, but the other units show up at times, and people expect them to have a dependable ratio with px. (Actually, they expect them to have the same ratio as whatever they see on their dev box's screen.) >> Furthermore, authors tend to code by copy and paste as well as >> guess-and-check. This is good because it allows someone with minimal HTML >> or CSS knowledge to create web pages, but bad because it means that when >> someone writes "12pt" chances are they didn't _mean_ anything; they just >> wrote something that worked. >> >> OK, so your options are then as follows: >> >> 1) Make 12pt actually be 1/6 of a physical inch. This has been tried, and >> it breaks pages. > > I imagine it does. But that's still the right thing to do. The problem > is CSS's inability to use specified versions. "fixing this breaks > current sites" is getting a pretty annoying thing to keep reading. So, > fix CSS to behave better? These things are only going to stack up the > longer we use CSS. You should really go read the debates from when this was formally decided. I'm pretty sure we exhausted the state-space of questions and objections. Literally everything you've said, at least, has been said before, and already answered or argued against. ~TJ
Received on Sunday, 19 February 2012 17:16:20 UTC