W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > August 2014

Re: [Bug 26526] Fix aspect ratio constraint

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 11:26:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPfnX8nbS3x5z-EvGfCe-2RoK=YgOwWRoS2sGPB-caJBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
Cc: "bugzilla@jessica.w3.org" <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote:

>  On 8/9/14 6:06 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> With AspectRatio, the problem
>  is that the user wants to specify a ratio that can't be accurately
> represented
> with a double and we've just defined a language that's too impoverished
> to represent that.
>
>
>  Realistically, are there going to be competing standard aspect ratios
> within epsilon?
>
> For hardware that can do flexible ratios, is double-precision insufficient
> to deduce the other pixel dimension?
>
> If not, then I think this is largely a problem that implementations should
> solve without affecting users. Users specifying 1.78, 1.77777777778 or 16/9
> presumably all mean exactly the same thing, the standard 16:9 widescreen
> aspect.
>

So, we can say that accurately or have a bunch of ways of approximating it
plus
a hack to make it work. I realize you think that's fine, I don't.

-Ekr

Thus an epsilon seems reasonable to me for aspectRatio, and introducing
> fractions seems overkill from a user's perspective\
>
Received on Sunday, 10 August 2014 18:27:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:29 UTC