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

Re: [css3-images][css4-images] Replace 'dppx' with 'x'?

From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 23:26:57 +0200
Message-Id: <2B1FE3A0-6A60-4638-8F0E-96ACC766A267@crissov.de>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr.:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Christoph Päper
>> Of course, all the reciprocal length units are plain stupid and unnecessary – and always have been.
> Go back in time and convince the rest of the world that "dpi" is a
> silly unit

Everyone already knows it’s a silly unit (and an even sillier symbol/abbreviation). Its only “benefit” is that it makes random numbers bigger when better.

Just because it’s still used elsewhere – often in a confusing, misleading or incorrect way, too – doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to use it in CSS verbatim. I wouldn’t prefer the ‘calc()’ and “<number> /” variants I presented over a simple <length> one, but they’re at least more CSSy than the additional <resolution> unit type.

> and they should just have used ratios of units instead.

No, they shouldn’t have. They should measure sizes and distances like they know how.

> Then we can talk.

You know, back when ‘dpi’ was introduced into CSS/MQ and ‘dpcm’ was invented specifically for it, some people including me tried to convince the WG that this was a bad idea, e.g. <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Aug/0204.html>.

Now you get negative feedback on ‘dppx’ which was modeled after the ill-advised ‘dpi’, except that it didn’t lose the second letter of the length unit symbol (as in *‘dpp’), and instead of fixing the issue at its root, which would still be possible, your first and best idea is to propose to cover the symptoms by introducing yet another freaking symbol, ‘x’.

It’s really frustrating: someone points out a problem early on, although maybe not foreseeing all of its possible bad future implications, no one responds or cares, one points it out again, still nothing, years later the bad design decision resurfaces in a different context, prompting an even worse suggestion for a solution – and you, as a member of the WG and with your Editor hat on, still have the guts to reply with something as snarky as “go back in time … then we can talk”.

As far as I can tell you’re one of the most productive (spec-wise) WG members at the moment – as an outsider one often is surprised how quick contributors come and go –, but even your short-term efficiency should come second to long-term stability. And please mind your manners.
Received on Friday, 25 May 2012 21:27:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:16 UTC