W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Features and fixes incompatible with backward compatibility

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:52:01 -0800
Message-Id: <95A5B2B0-C61D-49E0-816D-DE30DB2084D5@gmail.com>
Cc: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
On Feb 20, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:

> On Feb 20, 2012, at 9:26 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Maybe if we had only "px" and "truemm" (with the latter very rarely used), things would be better because I'd be less frequently accused of destroying the metric system :-).
>> I think anyone who would have typed mm or truemm and expected accurate millimeters in anything other than print would still be very disappointed most of the time. Not because of incorrect implementations, but because there are so many reasons why the display technology wouldn't or couldn't set that measurement accurately.
> What is an acceptable success ratio?
> I'm pretty sure we can get 100% of every iPhone and iPad when viewed on the screen.

How do you figure? Web pages on iOS are normally zoomed to something other than 100%, with no user controlled way to show at exactly 100%, so most of the time, truemm would not be accurate.

> If it works for 95%, is that good enough? Is any number good enough?

I don't think it would be good enough for general use, and if introduced it would be abused. It would mean that putting a web page onto a jumbotron would result in unreadably small text, and text on an eyeglasses display would be unreadably large. And 95% is a pipe dream, even for desktop displays.
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 19:52:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:12 UTC