[thelist] A pixel is not a pixel

Joe Crawford joe at artlung.com
Thu Jun 14 09:51:33 CDT 2001

Peter-Paul Koch wrote:
> If a pixel is defined as 1/90th of an inch and an inch contains either 72 or
> 96 pixels (depending on the OS), somewhere something must be terribly wrong.
> These two definitions simply don't go together, only one of them can be
> true.
> Sorry, but I still believe the Op5Mac behaviour is a bug.

Yes, but given the displays coming down the pipeline
<http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2000nov/gee20001110002855.htm> - our use
of pixels to define font sizes is an evolutionary dead end.

Everybody's right, and everybody's screwed! :-)

Gotta love web development for the way technology shifts out from under you.

+1 on "minimum-font-size" as something that's needed Arlen.

    - Joe
...........  Joe Crawford : thinking and design about the web
.... enigmatic narcissism and miscellany : http://artlung.com
.... community instigator : http://WebSanDiego.org
.... San Diego, California, USA .....................AAAFNRAA

More information about the thelist mailing list