-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michal Suchanek
>The problem is that the physical size is what the user sees, not the pixel resolution. That's why it's better to avoid pixels and specify sizes in points or other physical units where possible. -- Agreed. But using px vs % vs em is not at all the topic. >Most monitor brochures do mention DPI or its inverse - the pixel pitch. So any moderately knowledgeable electronics salesman can tell you they don't have any 72 DPI monitors. -- You must have some really smart salesmen where you are... My experience is that not many people know a great deal. Case in point would be this entire discussion. Anyone "moderately knowledgable" in computers will tell you a monitor's RESOLUTION (the origional question) is measured ONLY by pixels wide by pixels tall. A monitor can have a value that is labelled dots/pixels per inch but that is not a monitor's resolution. And asking for a value that can range from 20 or less to 120 or more is a waste of time, IMO. Yes, having a photograph's resolution mean "dots per inch" and a monitor's resolution meaning "pixels wide by pixels tall" is confusing but that's the way it is. Pixel pitch is not a value of how many pixels are crammed into a given area (which is slightly related to the OP). A smaller value is better because it means there is less space between pixels and therefore a clearer image. But, it's irrelevant to the topic. Mike ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [[email protected]] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
