- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 08:49:32 +0200
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 08/12/2014 06:17 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote: > On 8/11/14 6:17 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: >> On 11 August 2014 14:34, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote: >>> Actually, the spec already says: "The exact aspect ratio (width in >>> pixels >>> divided by height in pixels), represented as a double rounded to the >>> tenth >>> decimal place" [1] >>> >>> So we effectively have our epsilon already: .0000000001 >>> >>> So no action required it seems. >> Oh, that's good, there's an epsilon; but it's bad. 1.777777778 isn't >> the same as 16/9 based on that. Nor is 1.7777777777. Add a single >> digit to either and it would match. I may have counted wrong. I'm >> sure that others will too. > > Feel free to propose a different epsilon I suppose. > > I presume this would have nothing to do with inaccuracies inherent in > floating-point math then (or we could have picked an epsilon much > closer to everyone's worst machine epsilon), but instead from a desire > to accommodate people handwriting rounded decimal numbers for aspect. > Just so we're clear on the properties we seek. I'll repeat my suggestion of an epsilon of 1/1000. > > .: Jan-Ivar :. > >
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2014 06:50:04 UTC