W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ddr-vocab@w3.org > June 2007

RE: Height vs Width when a screen can rotate

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:32:18 +0100
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B43BC4ED@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: "Rotan Hanrahan" <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>, <public-ddr-vocab@w3.org>

> I chose to start with the software-independent addressable pixels
first,
> because these are usually the easiest to measure. When you get into
> chrome effect, things get murky.

Right, there's always a trade-off between what's easy to measure and
what's useful. I think that the height/width as you define it has the
semantic in the Delivery Context as a whole of "no more than".

I'm happy to contribute usable height and usable width as properties of
the Delivery Context as a whole - and therefore determined as a result
of considering the individual properties of the hardware, software and
gateways involved.

Jo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddr-vocab-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddr-vocab-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rotan Hanrahan
> Sent: 22 June 2007 11:12
> To: public-ddr-vocab@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Height vs Width when a screen can rotate
> 
> 
> When one excludes the browser and platform chrome, you have what we
> sometimes call the "usable width/height". For some devices this is
> known, for others it is not fixed (due to styling or customisation),
and
> sometimes not easy to predict/discover.
> 
> By addressable I meant that that it is possible to change the
> colour/brightness of the pixel directly via software. A screen might
> have a bevel/surround that appear as pixels, but they are fixed (or
> controlled purely by hardware) and not addressable by software. I
would
> not count these as part of the screen height/width.
> 
> I'd be quite happy to see someone contribute "usable height" and
"usable
> width" as properties, and we can argue which of these should be core.
> (Perhaps both?)
> 
> I chose to start with the software-independent addressable pixels
first,
> because these are usually the easiest to measure. When you get into
> chrome effect, things get murky.
> 
> ---Rotan.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddr-vocab-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ddr-vocab-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jo Rabin
> Sent: 22 June 2007 11:05
> To: public-ddr-vocab@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Height vs Width when a screen can rotate
> 
> 
> "Description: The total number of addressable pixels in the vertical
> direction of a rectangular display when held in its default
orientation.
> The property does not apply to screen shapes that are not rectangular
or
> square. This property is in the class of display properties."
> 
> At risk of leading down the route of wondering how many angels can
dance
> on the head of a pin, when we say "addressable pixels", do we man the
> number of pixels that are available within a defined browser context,
or
> do we mean the number of pixels exposed by the operating system to the
> browser ... the point being that the browser may have chrome, of
course.
> 
> Also to note that the Vodafone gateway in the UK reduces the pixels
> exposed by the browser by inserting a heading all of its own.
> 
> So the question is, does this property refer to the number of pixels
> available in this delivery context when all the components that go to
> make up the delivery context have done their bit, or does it mean
> something else?
> 
> If only life were simple.
> 
> Jo
> 
Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 11:32:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:04 GMT