The rationale in the article was perfectly reasonable to me. A px should be a physical pixel or whatever integer multiple makes for comfortable viewing, with all the other measurements allowed to be non-integer. Anything sized in px would then be both sensibly sized and scaled with good fidelity.
HTML was never intended to let you draw with that level of precision. It should still do something more sensible than arbitrary scaling if every link in the chain implements things as intended.
Comments
px is short for pixel, and should mean pixel. (Then nobody should use it). They should have chosen a better name.
The rationale in the article was perfectly reasonable to me. A px should be a physical pixel or whatever integer multiple makes for comfortable viewing, with all the other measurements allowed to be non-integer. Anything sized in px would then be both sensibly sized and scaled with good fidelity.
I agree about the word pixel being mis-named. But what if I really do what to draw something in pixels?
HTML was never intended to let you draw with that level of precision. It should still do something more sensible than arbitrary scaling if every link in the chain implements things as intended.