3 ms·
"q" seems to be doomed to failure. If I were that interested in moving away from points and ems, why would I adopt arbitrary fractions of a millimeter when I co
by kijin 10y ago
"q" seems to be doomed to failure. If I were that interested in moving away from points and ems, why would I adopt arbitrary fractions of a millimeter when I could just use plain old SI units that are universally understood? It doesn't even save a byte at typical font sizes: 20q == 5mm.
- masklinn 10y ago> It doesn't even save a byte at typical font sizes: 20q == 5mm. Typographers apparently use sub-millimeter precision for their sizes e.g. across 9 use cases Aicher had a single integral-millimiter font size[0]. The quarter-mm seems to have been the base multiplier suggested by DIN 16507-2, though it apparently also suggests 0.1 or 0.05mm when even more precision is necessary. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_typographic_units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_typographic_units
- ygra 10y agoSaving bytes in CSS was probably not the primary concern upon standardization in 1976. Note that the PostScript point (now the most common definition) is younger than that. Common usage doesn't always follow the best option that's available, as evident by many examples throughout history. Furthermore, having a measurement that can frequently be used with integer dimensions is convenient, which is probably a large part why we still use points. 12 pt is a convenient font size, so is 4 mm (technically 4.2 mm, as 11.8 pt would be 4 mm), but while 10 pt is still convenient, 3.5 mm is less so. Smaller units lead to more useful integer values (within reason, of course).
- gsnedders 10y agoIt's in CSS because of its use in Japan; not an attempt to get elsewhere to adopt it.