W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2013

Re: [css-values] The length unit 'Q' (quarter of millimeter)

From: Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 23:57:50 -0500
Message-ID: <528C414E.4020000@earthlink.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 2013-11-19 11:20 (GMT-0500) Tab Atkins Jr. composed:

> Felix Miata wrote:

>>>> Pt for quite some time has been a synonym for px in
>>>> Blink, Gecko, Trident and WebKit.

>>> No it's not.  1pt = 4/3px.  In easier terms, 12pt == 16px.

>> A pt is a physical unit, while a px is a unit whose size varies widely
>> according to screen density. You can claim a pt is a logical unit all you
>> want, but that doesn't make it so except in a limited context needlessly
>> divergent from all historical contexts and non-web current contexts.
>
> I'm not sure why you think this is a rebuttal.  You said pt and px
> were synonyms, implying that they're the same unit.  They are not, as
> I explained.

Not the first time I brainlocked on that one. It's easy to do when both are 
similar in size at a tiny fraction of legible and the scribble is all styled 
using only one unit or the other. I intend to explain further as time permits 
in an appropriate place. Preliminary activity to that end is already 
available at: http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/W3/

> As I said, please stop trying to hijack this thread with physical unit
> discussions.  We've had this discussion ad nauseum, the reasoning
> behind our decision is strong back-compat, and it's not going to be
> revisited any time soon.

> In particular, it's not going to be revisited *in this thread*.  Please stop.

No matter how much you claim otherwise, the thread subject as written is 
clearly about a proposed unit that either:

1:will or will not be implemented

2:if implemented, might be implemented as either a logical unit, or a 
physical unit

What I wrote was and is intended to be relevant to discussion of both 
components of the OP's subject request/proposal.

The more I read of standards development discussions, the more sure I am that 
most observers, if not participants, are ensconced in a 96 DPI microcosm, 
and/or entranced by miniature web access device screens, and have no 
consciousness of life outside their little spheres. Thus the ramifications of 
either that ill-conceived so-called back-compat, or the furtherance of that 
insanity by hijacking yet another physical unit, and further entrenching the 
unfortunate user affliction that is the use px units of any type to size web 
objects that should be or need to be legible and selectable, are simply not 
apparent to too many who may be party to the decision process.

The px unit, whether actually matching the angular specification or 
otherwise, whether device px or CSS px, disregards users' pre-determination 
of any and every unit that can predictably result in legible, usable and 
respectful web pages on most device screens regardless of viewing distance, 
physical size or pixel density, pages that do not require employment of 
defensive measures to make them fit comfortably into their own workspaces as 
if they were meant to be used there instead of only on the stylists' screens. 
Providing yet another unit that is no more than a fraction or multiple of a 
px unit can do nothing but compound the unnecessary affliction, and retard 
any possible evolution of usability either purposefully or unconsciously 
designed in as an essential element of the vast majority of web styling jobs.

IOW, I implore implementation of the Q as a physical unit, or not at all.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 04:58:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:37 UTC