W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > August 2010

Fwd: [whatwg] Built-in image sprite support in HTML5

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:24:50 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinRybwLp8Ux9db788EMTO83H29ZhDQWqL9ypROL@mail.gmail.com>
To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Several people have spoken up for cropping.

Cheers,
Silvia.


On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > As we adopt media fragment URIs into the HTML5 spec, we should
> prescribe
> >> > what the user experience is meant to be, such that UAs can implement a
> >> > consistent handling.
> >>
> >> I don't think it makes sense to have the HTML spec define what other
> specs
> >> mean. We've had to do it in places, but only when the other
> specifications
> >> have dropped the ball.
> >
> > I will take the desire to have a clear specification for what Web
> browsers
> > are to do with Media Fragment URIs back into the Media Fragment WG. I
> > believe Web browsers are a special and the most important use case for
> such
> > URIs, so it makes sense to specify that clearly.
> >
> > It would, however, be good to have an indication where HTML would like to
> > see it going. Would it be better for a media fragment URI for images such
> as
> > http://example.com/picture.png#xywh=160,120,320,240  to display the full
> > image with the rectangle somehow highlighted (as is the case with
> fragment
> > URIs to HTML pages), or would it be better to actually just display the
> > specified region and hide the rest of the image (i.e. create a sprite)?
> What
> > makes the most sense for images?
>
> I definitely think creating a sprite makes the most sense. There are a
> lot more usage of spriting out there then there are of highlighting a
> particular portion of an image loaded using <img>
>
> / Jonas
>


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Built-in image sprite support in HTML5
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, David Weitzman <
dweitzman@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>



On Aug 25, 2010, at 7:00 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:


There are recommendations for what to do with video in the browser. I can
encourage the group to also make recommendations for what it means for
images in the browser.

However, the use of Media Fragment URIs in applications in general really
cannot be prescribed - what a video editor does with a media fragment URI is
different to what a video playlist player does and again different to what
it means in the browser and probably different again for <pick your random
application here>. Not all applications display a timeline - not all
applications allow interaction with the resource, some applications want to
use the resource in context (i.e. with access to the rest of the resource),
others don't. It is early times for Media Fragment URIs so some of these use
cases will have to be experimented with before a good recommendation can be
made.


When different kinds of applications may need different behavior, one
possible solution is for the spec to have different conformance classes. In
this case, for the feature to be useful for Web content authors, it's pretty
important for browsers to all do the same thing, even if other types of
applications may behave differently.


I will take the desire to have a clear specification for what Web browsers
are to do with Media Fragment URIs back into the Media Fragment WG. I
believe Web browsers are a special and the most important use case for such
URIs, so it makes sense to specify that clearly.


Yes, definitely.


It would, however, be good to have an indication where HTML would like to
see it going. Would it be better for a media fragment URI for images such as
http://example.com/picture.png#xywh=160,120,320,240  to display the full
image with the rectangle somehow highlighted (as is the case with fragment
URIs to HTML pages), or would it be better to actually just display the
specified region and hide the rest of the image (i.e. create a sprite)? What
makes the most sense for images?


It should crop to the selected region, i.e. create a sprite. This is a more
generally useful behavior.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2010 03:25:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:45 UTC