- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 09:26:12 +0200
- To: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
On Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 11:36:13 PM, Edward wrote: EOC> Hi, EOC> So far as I can tell, the closest thing to a definition for "dot" in EOC> CSS3 Values is in the caption of Figure 2: EOC> "Showing that more device pixels (dots) are needed to cover a 1px by EOC> 1px area on a high-resolution device than on a low-res one" EOC> I think it would be good if this definition were raised out of the EOC> caption to be its own statement in normative prose somewhere. Yes. The term dot needs to be defined. Whether 'device pixel' is a good definition is less clear - it applies to displays, but applies less clearly to printer dots, where it relates to the screening resolution. Note that we also added some clarifying text on resolution to Media Queries, which mentions dots: 4.11. resolution For printers, this corresponds to the screening resolution (the resolution for printing dots of arbitrary color). http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-css3-mediaqueries-20120426/#resolution Note that screens for different inks are rotated relative to each other, so they don't really correspond to device pixels. Note too that the 'dots of arbitrary color' and 'smallest possible dots' are different, the former being composed of clumps of the latter. -- Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2012 07:26:14 UTC