- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:55:45 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008, Jim Jewett wrote: > > Looking at http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video > > I think the various width/height definitions need to be clarified (and > placed right next to each other?), or even reduced, to avoid buggy > spec-reading. > > As best I can tell: > > (1) The document element itself has only "width" and "height", which > are in CSS pixels. > (2) The document element attributes are reflected in the DOM as > "width" and "height". > (3) The binary data in the video's own media stream may include > height and width, which are called "intrinsic height" and "intrinsic > width". > (4) "intrinsic height" and "intrinsic width" are added to the DOM > under the names "videoWidth" and "videoHeight" > (5) "adjusted height" and "adjusted width" do not appear in the > document or the DOM; they are not available to scripts. They are > simply convenient labels to simplify the spec-writing on how to deal > with non-square pixels in either the source media or the display > screen. (Or perhaps only of the display screen?) What you describe seems right to me; what are you suggesting changing? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 1 December 2008 07:56:19 UTC