Re:Responsive images
by leephillips on Saturday June 12, 2021 @08:29AM
(#27483992)
Pixel in CSS is a CSS pixel, which your browser will translate to about 1/96 inches. So 1200px is the same physical length on an old 72dpi screen, a 4k monitor, or the quark-scale resolution displays of the future.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Responsive images
by bruce343434 on Saturday June 12, 2021 @01:03PM
(#27485795)
I don't buy it. Old websites that have handcrafted tables, px-perfect to fit fullscreen on a vga monitor look really, really narrow and small on my screen.
Re:Responsive images
by leephillips on Saturday June 12, 2021 @01:12PM
(#27485857)
Someone in this thread quoted the CSS spec. You don’t have to “buy it”. A CSS pixel is a unit of length, like cm. It’s not a pixel. Of course that’s confusing. It’s supposed to be. It’s CSS.
Re:Responsive images
by bruce343434 on Saturday June 12, 2021 @06:06PM
(#27487799)
I get that but then perhaps my browser doesn't implement the spec correctly. Because I know what I see. Tiny pages with tiny text that would have looked fine on my 4:3 crt emac years ago.
Re:Responsive images
by leephillips on Saturday June 12, 2021 @06:13PM
(#27487841)
There are more things that come in to play, such as the resolution that X11 thinks your display has. Just zoom the page in. What’s important is the relative sizes of things on the page, not how big the page looks.