- From: Juergen Roethig <roethig@dhbw-karlsruhe.de>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:48:38 +0200
- To: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Hello world, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Juergen Roethig > <roethig@dhbw-karlsruhe.de> wrote: >> I may make 1 (one) coordinate system unit be of size 1px, >> 42px, 4711px, or even just 0.0815px, dependent on the viewbox, scaling of >> containing elements, and resolution of the output device. And now I get told >> that I should use a unit "pixel" for that? Incredible! > > You may be surprised to learn that 1px does not necessarily equal 1 > device pixel even in normal CSS. It's a screen-independent size based > on an angular measure. No, I will neither be surprised about nor learn that at all, since I already know that a "device pixel" and a "pixel" might be different. Nevertheless, on desktop browsers, they very often have the same size. But you might be surprised to learn that especially on mobile devices (IOS, Android, whatever), "pixel" and "device pixel" are usually of different sizes - if those are of the same size, it's just an exception. That's why I regard a "pixel" usually as a "virtual device pixel" ;-) But as far as I see, I never wrote "device pixel" in my previous message, I just wrote "pixel", and the abbreviation "px" should be a synonym for just that. But I am quite sure that you will neither be surprised about nor learn that at all, since you already know that ... ... but I am surprised to learn, just now, about the accuracy, carefulness, and reliability when making new "standards" in the W3C - so far the "living standard" of HTML was the best example for that (and yes, I know, the term "living standard" for HTML is not originating from the W3C), but other standards seem to adopt those superiour principles as well (irony intended, or in that case you might even call it sarcasm). Best regards, Juergen Roethig
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2014 19:49:38 UTC