On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 8/6/14 9:09 PM, bugzilla@jessica.w3.org wrote:
>
>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26526
>>
>> Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> changed:
>>
>> What |Removed |Added
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------
>> CC| |
>> silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com
>>
>> --- Comment #1 from Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> ---
>> We handle width and height separately, why not { aspect: {x : 16, y : 9}
>> }.
>> Doesn't seem that complicated.
>>
>
> But unnecessary. Width and height are separate constraints, not a
> multi-property constraint. I.e. not { video: { exact: size: { w: 640, h:
> 480 } } };
>
> I think there's a better case size to be our first multi-property
> constraint than aspect, as the former is a two-dimensional space and the
> latter just a ratio.
>
> AspectRatio, frameRate and volume all use double,
These things don't seem the same to me. With frameRate and volume,
we let the user specify what they want (within the limits of a double)
and error is due to quantization error. With AspectRatio, the problem
is that the user wants to specify a ratio that can't be accurately
represented
with a double and we've just defined a language that's too impoverished
to represent that.
-Ekr
Received on Saturday, 9 August 2014 22:07:15 UTC