On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 8/9/14 6:06 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > 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. > > > Realistically, are there going to be competing standard aspect ratios > within epsilon? > > For hardware that can do flexible ratios, is double-precision insufficient > to deduce the other pixel dimension? > > If not, then I think this is largely a problem that implementations should > solve without affecting users. Users specifying 1.78, 1.77777777778 or 16/9 > presumably all mean exactly the same thing, the standard 16:9 widescreen > aspect. > So, we can say that accurately or have a bunch of ways of approximating it plus a hack to make it work. I realize you think that's fine, I don't. -Ekr Thus an epsilon seems reasonable to me for aspectRatio, and introducing > fractions seems overkill from a user's perspective\ >
Received on Sunday, 10 August 2014 18:27:43 UTC