Comments on: CSS Units http://webkit.org/blog/57/css-units/ All about WebKit development Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:00:28 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: AaronShep http://webkit.org/blog/57/css-units/comment-page-1/#comment-22941 AaronShep Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:29:17 +0000 http://webkit.opendarwin.org/blog/?p=57#comment-22941 There's something I'm not hearing anyone mention about automatically downscaling bitmap images. For optimal quality, an image must be sharpened _after_ it is downscaled -- because the optimal amount of sharpening depends partly on the image resolution. If you sharpen an image at 200 ppi, it will be blurry again after downscaling to 100 ppi. If a browser is going to downscale properly, it must apply additional appropriate sharpening. And that is possibly too much to ask. Aaron There’s something I’m not hearing anyone mention about automatically downscaling bitmap images. For optimal quality, an image must be sharpened _after_ it is downscaled — because the optimal amount of sharpening depends partly on the image resolution. If you sharpen an image at 200 ppi, it will be blurry again after downscaling to 100 ppi.

If a browser is going to downscale properly, it must apply additional appropriate sharpening. And that is possibly too much to ask.

Aaron

]]> By: CSS Units of Measurement « LearningNerd http://webkit.org/blog/57/css-units/comment-page-1/#comment-22164 CSS Units of Measurement « LearningNerd Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:09:51 +0000 http://webkit.opendarwin.org/blog/?p=57#comment-22164 [...] ;. In other words, they’re never used for websites. As explained in an article about CSS Units, “The absolute unit is a myth…. Any browser that truly attempted to treat pt as 1/72nd [...] [...] ;. In other words, they’re never used for websites. As explained in an article about CSS Units, “The absolute unit is a myth…. Any browser that truly attempted to treat pt as 1/72nd [...]

]]> By: SoloSolo http://webkit.org/blog/57/css-units/comment-page-1/#comment-2897 SoloSolo Wed, 03 May 2006 14:23:06 +0000 http://webkit.opendarwin.org/blog/?p=57#comment-2897 I think that you can apply this High DPI idea to quirks mode. In standard mode leave 1px = 1 monitor pixel and 1in = 1 real inch, please. I want my logo to be 2 inches wide, no more, no less. Bad designers must be educated or confined to quirks mode. Leave standard mode as correct as possible for the designers that studied the CSS specs and the CSS manuals. I think that you can apply this High DPI idea to quirks mode.
In standard mode leave 1px = 1 monitor pixel and 1in = 1 real inch, please.
I want my logo to be 2 inches wide, no more, no less.

Bad designers must be educated or confined to quirks mode. Leave standard mode as correct as possible for the designers that studied the CSS specs and the CSS manuals.

]]> By: Tim http://webkit.org/blog/57/css-units/comment-page-1/#comment-2550 Tim Wed, 26 Apr 2006 02:00:20 +0000 http://webkit.opendarwin.org/blog/?p=57#comment-2550 I was surprised to see that px was indeed relative. So the proposal seems entirely in line with the intention. But what makes the question mark appear above my head is why the CSS spec included no absolute (non-relative) units. It may be rare, but there are certainly times where I want to specify a non-subpixel unit that is as small as possible. I often stroke images with a 1px line, which I may not wish to scale up with the rest of the content. I may also place items along side each other as closely as possible, with only a 1px margin or padding -- also not wishing it to scale as the objects change size. Whey did they include pixels when given the current specs, points would have done just fine? Illustrator, PageMaker, and other print apps have expressed everything in points forever -- only recently have they had to add pixel units to meet the needs of the web design and production grind. On a related note, you mentioned that px and pt have been used interchangeably under false pretense. But isn't this to solve the problem that images and other design elements are specified in pixels (with little in the way of alternate options since user agents don't respect DPI information in image files) yet to use points to specify typefaces would yield very different looking layouts across platforms or even browsers? I was surprised to see that px was indeed relative. So the proposal seems entirely in line with the intention. But what makes the question mark appear above my head is why the CSS spec included no absolute (non-relative) units. It may be rare, but there are certainly times where I want to specify a non-subpixel unit that is as small as possible.

I often stroke images with a 1px line, which I may not wish to scale up with the rest of the content. I may also place items along side each other as closely as possible, with only a 1px margin or padding — also not wishing it to scale as the objects change size.

Whey did they include pixels when given the current specs, points would have done just fine? Illustrator, PageMaker, and other print apps have expressed everything in points forever — only recently have they had to add pixel units to meet the needs of the web design and production grind.

On a related note, you mentioned that px and pt have been used interchangeably under false pretense. But isn’t this to solve the problem that images and other design elements are specified in pixels (with little in the way of alternate options since user agents don’t respect DPI information in image files) yet to use points to specify typefaces would yield very different looking layouts across platforms or even browsers?

]]> By: MacDome http://webkit.org/blog/57/css-units/comment-page-1/#comment-2549 MacDome Wed, 26 Apr 2006 01:55:48 +0000 http://webkit.opendarwin.org/blog/?p=57#comment-2549 James, It looks like the SVG you cite is invalid XML (thus failing to render in both Firefox and Safari). http://deerring.com/cg/cg1.svg It's missing at least the xlink namespace declaration. I would encourage you to read Jonathan Watt's SVG authoring guidelines for more information: http://jwatt.org/svg/authoring/ -eric James,

It looks like the SVG you cite is invalid XML (thus failing to render in both Firefox and Safari).

http://deerring.com/cg/cg1.svg

It’s missing at least the xlink namespace declaration. I would encourage you to read Jonathan Watt’s SVG authoring guidelines for more information:

http://jwatt.org/svg/authoring/

-eric

]]> By: BlueSparc design, technology news » Blog Archive » High Definition Web Sites, Elastic Layout http://webkit.org/blog/57/css-units/comment-page-1/#comment-2540 BlueSparc design, technology news » Blog Archive » High Definition Web Sites, Elastic Layout Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:34:50 +0000 http://webkit.opendarwin.org/blog/?p=57#comment-2540 [...] > High Definition Web Sites, Elastic Layout Dave Hyatt, of Surfin’ Safari fame has a lot to say about the potential of high-definition websites, and the CSS t [...] [...] > High Definition Web Sites, Elastic Layout Dave Hyatt, of Surfin’ Safari fame has a lot to say about the potential of high-definition websites, and the CSS t [...]

]]> By: jkporter http://webkit.org/blog/57/css-units/comment-page-1/#comment-2513 jkporter Tue, 25 Apr 2006 03:09:26 +0000 http://webkit.opendarwin.org/blog/?p=57#comment-2513 I might be the only one but I always set the Windows DPI (IE, Opera) & the DPI setting in Firefox to the actual physical DPI of my screen. I can’t recall I’ve ever ran into any problems as a result. I might be the only one but I always set the Windows DPI (IE, Opera) & the DPI setting in Firefox to the actual physical DPI of my screen. I can’t recall I’ve ever ran into any problems as a result.

]]> By: Robert http://webkit.org/blog/57/css-units/comment-page-1/#comment-2491 Robert Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:59:13 +0000 http://webkit.opendarwin.org/blog/?p=57#comment-2491 James, I wasn't able to see your provided image (won't display in Safari 2.0.3, firefox raises an error). I guess your point is that you can have a pic that looks as good as a jpg with similar filesizes and display sizes, and when displayed at a higher image size will look nicer, albeit not showing any additional data. Well my point is that a browser at higher dpi should be able to display more details for an image and _that this very functionality (requesting more image data if the browser can display it) should be a basic browsing thing, not something that requires some hacks like extensive use of javascript. James, I wasn’t able to see your provided image (won’t display in Safari 2.0.3, firefox raises an error). I guess your point is that you can have a pic that looks as good as a jpg with similar filesizes and display sizes, and when displayed at a higher image size will look nicer, albeit not showing any additional data. Well my point is that a browser at higher dpi should be able to display more details for an image and _that this very functionality (requesting more image data if the browser can display it) should be a basic browsing thing, not something that requires some hacks like extensive use of javascript.

]]> By: Satunnainen Björklund » CSS-yksiköt http://webkit.org/blog/57/css-units/comment-page-1/#comment-2482 Satunnainen Björklund » CSS-yksiköt Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:31:28 +0000 http://webkit.opendarwin.org/blog/?p=57#comment-2482 [...] Satunnainen Björklund 24.4.2006 CSS-yksiköt Surfin’ Safari: CSS Units. Lisää samasta aiheesta. Ennen ja jälkeen « Hupia Scoblen ja MS:n kusta [...] [...]

Satunnainen Björklund 24.4.2006 CSS-yksiköt Surfin’ Safari: CSS Units. Lisää samasta aiheesta. Ennen ja jälkeen « Hupia Scoblen ja MS:n kusta [...]

]]> By: jcburns http://webkit.org/blog/57/css-units/comment-page-1/#comment-2479 jcburns Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:12:00 +0000 http://webkit.opendarwin.org/blog/?p=57#comment-2479 "The sad truth is that designers never really understood the difference between pt and px." Well, gee, thanks for painting all designers with the broadest of brushes...I think the truth (in my case and among many I know) is that we knew the distinction, but when CSS was over time so inconsistently implemented, you find something that produces (mostly) reproducable results, and then you stick with that. Anyone who has used Photoshop since about 1994 has had the opportunity to distinguish between pt and px. It's a trust situation...when designers are convinced (and increasingly, we are) that it's safe to use all the tools in the CSS toolbox, we will. Otherwise we tell each other: "don't touch that one, it'll hurt'ya." “The sad truth is that designers never really understood the difference between pt and px.”

Well, gee, thanks for painting all designers with the broadest of brushes…I think the truth (in my case and among many I know) is that we knew the distinction, but when CSS was over time so inconsistently implemented, you find something that produces (mostly) reproducable results, and then you stick with that.

Anyone who has used Photoshop since about 1994 has had the opportunity to distinguish between pt and px.

It’s a trust situation…when designers are convinced (and increasingly, we are) that it’s safe to use all the tools in the CSS toolbox, we will. Otherwise we tell each other: “don’t touch that one, it’ll hurt’ya.”

]]>