OT: CSS details

[Fairlight]

When asked his whereabouts on Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 04:04:51PM -0400,
Jay Ashworth took the fifth, drank it, and then slurred:
> If I say <font size="100 px">, I'm going to get 100 pixel tall letters,
> right?
> 
> I can fit 6 lines of those on a 640x480 monitor and 10 on a 1024x768,
> but they're still 100 px tall, correct?

Correct.

I think somewhere, someone screwed the pooch in mixing pixels with dpi as
a definition of pixels.  They're defining pixels -by- dot pitch.  We're
defining high-level construct elements on a display (fonts, bitmaps, etc.)
-from- pixels.  Two different ways of looking at it.

IMHO, there was no need to define pixel as a relative term.  It's the
smallest finite element on any display, regardless of resolution, period,
the end.

But the standards writers are the same fools that gave us Schema--a
ridiculously recursive definition for XML, written in XML.  That's like
defining the ISO9660 standard and requiring you to read the standard off
of an ISO9660 CD-ROM to be able code to it.  Since when do these people
-think-?

</grouse>

mark->
-- 
"Moral cowardice will surely be written as the cause on the death
certificate of what used to be Western Civilization." --James P. Hogan