W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Encrypted Media proposal

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:29:33 -0800
Message-ID: <4F54F7FD.9040807@jumis.com>
To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org
On 3/5/2012 1:43 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 19:53:32 +0100, Charles Pritchard 
> <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
>> On 3/2/2012 3:27 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>>> 3. Rendering must likely use some form of overlay. Opera has this 
>>> for some platforms, but it limits the functionality of the <video> 
>>> element, e.g. CSS transforms (other than scale+translate) and CSS 
>>> opacity won't work. We consider this a platform limitation and it is 
>>> not something we really want to make a core requirement for <video>.
>> I'd like to see this bit added somehow to the CSS Transforms spec.
>> Flash is treated as an overlay in Chrome, it's behavior with 
>> transform has been unstable, and it would've helped to have 
>> scale+translate specified as an "ok" alternative. Flash is still 
>> broken in Chrome.
>> I think we're going to need to figure out how to signal to the 
>> scripting/CSS environment when CSS transforms are limited to 
>> scale+translate (with rotate missing).
> There's really nothing to add to the spec, it's just a quality of 
> implementation issue. The point is that overlays *limit* the quality 
> of implementation possible, so I think it would be a bad idea to 
> require it in any Web standard.

It's a recurring issue relating to the technical qualities of transforms.

If a <video> or <object> tag can not respond to rotate, perhaps it 
should not have rotate return in its computed styles and/or getters.

Doesn't that make sense?

Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 17:29:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:49 UTC