W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Fwd: video size when aspect ratio is not 1

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 00:53:12 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830908220753j8ccfab8jd69efbdbf7491cfd@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip Jšgenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Cc: \"RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Philip Jšgenstedt<philipj@opera.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:22:38 +0200, RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
> wrote:
>
>>> just came across this on whatwg. I think it also applies to our aspect
>>> fragment addressing, right?
>>
>> Indeed. The aspect ratio is defined in our document as a way to crop an
>> image to a centered area given the defined aspect ratio. We then write:
>> "The original media is cropped either horizontally or vertically to the
>> maximum size that has the given aspect ratio."
>> I realize that we have no use case that clearly shows the need for such a
>> feature. Perhaps we could add one, what do you think?
>
> Why does MF need to define any UI or rendering? If it does, it only risks
> being subtly incompatible with other specs (notably HTML5). The scope should
> be simply stating what the time range is, what the aspect ratio is and so on
> and letting the rest be external to MF.

MF can get created on the server - so the cropping takes place there.
If it is not clear what cropping is done, then we get incompatible
implementations and browsers will display different things for the
same MF URI. I don't think that's desirable.

Silvia.
Received on Saturday, 22 August 2009 14:54:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:34 GMT