W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2011

Re: [css3-images] Features Overview

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:19:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDApxsMQZ4BMRGi=X_rrcB3sX5nufQh+Ex-D6sLq0kt_MA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org, public-media-fragment@w3.org
2011/7/27 Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>:
> Dear Tab,
>
>> I agree that it's difficult to find a good answer.  If we think the
>> problem is essentially impossible, then we should just make it
>> explicitly unsupported, not undefined.
>
> 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.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 16:20:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:42 GMT