On 12/13/2013 6:25 PM, cowwoc wrote:
> On 13/12/2013 4:06 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
>> On 12/13/13 2:43 PM, cowwoc wrote:
>>> I don't see how you could express the following constraints all at once:
>>>
>>> 1. For aspect ratio 4/3, require resolutions from 800x600 to
>>> 1600x1200, prefer 1200x900
>>> 2. For aspect ratio 16/9, require resolutions from 1280x720 to
>>> 1920x1080, prefer 1600x900
>>>
>>
>> Here you're saying "I must have these mandatory constraints OR these
>> other mandatory constraints". That's way beyond what you can express
>> today! That hardly seems fair. How come you didn't like my
>> declarative syntax then?
>
> It's not about playing "fair". It's about testing how legitimate
> use-cases get expressed by the various proposals.
>
>> With my original declarative syntax this is a piece of cake:
>>
>> [
>> { width: 1200, height: 900 },
>> { width: 1600, height: 900 },
>> {
>> aspect: { min: 1.33, max: 1.34 },
>> width: { min: 800, max: 1600 },
>> height: { min: 600, max: 1200 }
>> },
>> {
>> aspect: { min: 1.77, max: 1.78 },
>> width: { min: 1280, max: 1920 },
>> height: { min: 720, max: 1080 }
>> },
>> ]
>>
>> Can I write you down as supporting it? ;-)
>
> It's not clear to me how browser is meant to implement the above
> dictionary. I mean, does it scan from top to bottom and stop on the
> first match?
Yes. Or non-procedurally speaking, it's a list of preferred configurations.
.: Jan-Ivar :.
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2013 00:51:32 UTC