- From: chcunningham via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 01:14:18 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I think you mean for width to be in "CSS pixels" and same for height (length is typo). For clarity, resolution is "the number of device pixels per css unit". All that to say: while the values may differ between video* prefixed vs unprefixed features, but the units/definitions should be common to both.
> There is concern though that { standard, high } are qualitative/un-standardized. As @mwatson2 noted:
>> Actually, the dynamic range supported by the PQ transfer function is already "crazy high" and the 2020 color gamut "crazy wide".
I think he's just saying that some of the underlying pieces (eotf and color gamut) have lots of headroom to describe a category of devices that don't exist yet. Said another way, 5 years from now when a new generation of TVs may have a much higher contrast ratio, and we'll call it "crazy high" dynamic range, but PQ may still be a suitable transfer function.
Mark's [later comment](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4471#issuecomment-548179959) is squarely on the side of not trying to assign tight definitions to categories of dynamic range. I think this sounds practical. There are a number of competing HDR badge requirements (e.g. UHD vs Vesa) and its a bit of a minefield to walk in.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by chcunningham
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4471#issuecomment-549619495 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2019 01:14:20 UTC