- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:36:43 +1000
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Cc: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: > On 08/10/2014 11:48 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > > What's the difference between providing a float to give the aspect ratio and > a float to provide an epsilon for accuracy to providing two integers to > provide exact aspect ratio? It's two numbers either way. Actually, two > integers need less storage, are easier to understand and read by users (you > could have fooled me with expecting to know that 1.7 is supposed to be > 16/9), and more accurate. I really don't see where you see the advantage? > > > Actually Javascript doesn't do integers. It just does doubles. So no storage > saving. Fair enough. ;-) Though most browsers are implemented in C++ and C++ does care. But never mind. > Concrete suggestion: I suggest we define epsilon to be 1/1000 of the largest > number in the comparision. So 1.78 would not match 1.777777777777777, but > 1.778 would. Actually, as long as we can continue specifying it as "16/9" and it's suggested as best practice, I can probably live with that. I just want it readable and meaningful. Aspect ratios have been specified as rational numbers in the past for a reason (which I think is readability). Silvia.
Received on Monday, 11 August 2014 23:37:30 UTC