Do you know of a browser that does that?
Op5Mac did, IE5/Mac gave the user a chose between 1/72 and 1/96
piksels per
inch. No one got it right. It's depends on what the OS is saying.
CSS2 ?
I want to use the best resolution my monitor supports. What's
wrong with that? On my 17" monitor 1280px wide is possible; there
is nothing that says that 1280 is only for 21" monitors.
Oh. It's nothing wrong with that. Resolution is about quality, not
about size.
At least that you have to agree on. The problem arises when you think
about
pixels as a measure of size. Well, your OS don't give a shit (MS try
to) but
thats all. On a PDAs meant to read e-books, this will be an issue. On
an PDA you're holding your screen closer to your face, if we're
reading
a book, we also want the quality to be better. (There you go, the CSS
spesification don't say anything how an pixel relate to an dot on a
printer, you see?). I know this is controversial, but it's in the
specificatons:
"Pixel units are relative to the resolution of the viewing device,
i.e., most often a computer display. If the pixel density of the
output device is very different from that of a typical computer
display, the user agent should rescale pixel values."
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html#em-width
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/images/pixel1.gif
As usual, user agents can do what thay want, the key word is "very
different". As I
see it, it's up to the "user agent" to decide.
Which is why I have started specifying image widths in
percentages.
They do it on the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) homepage too.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
If the text is to small to read, the images is too.
And no, don't use pixels.