- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:38:21 +0100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
On 17/04/2014 19:09, fantasai wrote: > On 07/26/2013 09:59 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >> While that's reasonable, still, if you know the size of a "real inch", >> then you know the ratio of a real inch to a CSS in. This can be used >> to interpret the format-specified ratio in a more accurate way than >> just assuming that it's referring to a CSS in. >> >> What I'm saying is, I prefer to leave this underdefined. > > I disagree. I think the concept of "inch" should be consistent > throughout all of CSS if possible. So <length>, media queries, > and image-resolution. Yes, the "in" and "dpi" units should be consistent within CSS. But neither of them is related to the imperial inch unit. > In other news, if the image says "I'm 72dpi" and I write > image-resolution: 72dpi > these should both give the same result. I disagree. I’m pretty sure that "inch" in EXIF refers to the imperial unit rather than the CSS "in" unit that is worth 96 times 0.0213 degrees of visual angle. -- Simon Sapin
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 14:38:45 UTC