OT: CSS details

[Tyler]

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:04:51 -0400
From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra at baylink.com>
Subject: Re: OT: CSS details

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 03:46:31PM -0400, Fairlight wrote:
> This public service announcement was brought to you by Kenneth Brody:
> >    Pixel units, as used in the last rule, are relative to the resolution of
> >    the canvas, i.e. most often a computer display. If the pixel density of
>
> Yeah, they're relative to the display resolution, but they're absolute
> references within that resolution.  I think it was kind of misleading to
> define them as relative, since 100px is 100px in, whether you're at 640x480
> or 1900x1200 (or whatever that really big one is.  100px is 100px, for all
> intents an purposes.
>
> Ok.  So Ken and the standard say one thing, and you're saying another
> -- another which seems more like what I expect.
>
> 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?

The number of units is 100px at any resolution.  The standard is not
talking about how many pixels you use, however.  The pixels themselves
are sized differently on the screen depending on the screen's
resolution.  So a nice thin line at a high resolution may be big and
ugly at a low resolution.  An HR with a width of 225px will appear to
be about 1 inch long at a high resolution, but would appear about 6
inches long at a low resolution (and possibly extend off screen!).
It is the *size of the pixel*, not the number of pixels being used,
that is relative.

Tyler