W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > November 2011

Re: [css3-images] Features Overview

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 13:21:27 -0700
Message-ID: <4EB59AC7.60100@inkedblade.net>
To: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org, public-media-fragment@w3.org
On 10/05/2011 01:59 AM, Raphaël Troncy wrote:
> Dear Tab, Fantasai,
>>> Follow-up of this thread, the Editor Draft now states (section 4.2.2),
>>> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#naming-space:
>>> "Note that in the case of pixel-based clipping areas, application of those
>>> areas to multi-resolutions visual media is unsupported. More generally,
>>> pixel-clip an image that does not have a single well defined pixel
>>> resolution (width and height) is not recommended."
>>> Do you agree with this reformulation?
>> What does "not supported" imply? Does it just give the entire image
>> then, ignoring the "fragment" part of the request entirely?
>> If so, that's fine with me. I request that it be stated something
>> more like the following, though:
>> "If the clipping region is pixel-based and the image is
>> multi-resolution (like an ICO file), the fragment MUST be ignored, so
>> that the url represents the entire image."
>> This specifies a specific, testable behavior.
> I would like to let you know that your suggested rephrasing has been included in the specification, see
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#naming-space. We have assumed that we have addressed your
> comments in our disposal of comments now that this document is transitioning to Candidate Recommendation.

Looks alright to me. I presume Tab's ok with it, too, since he wrote the
text there. ;)

Received on Saturday, 5 November 2011 20:24:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:47 UTC