- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 08:52:54 +0200
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 08/15/2014 03:38 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Martin Thomson > <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 14 August 2014 16:47, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Out of curiosity, what's the advantage is being inexact when we can easily >>> be exact? >> If you have a proposal, please share. > See earlier in the thread, I see either two integers or a string being > better for specifying a rational number. As stated, though, I am not > fussed. I just want to know why there are very strong voices for a > single float value for "aspect" rather than one of the other options. Because all other values in the constraints system are either strings that match exactly or not at all or numbers where it makes sense to compute distances. Introducing a third data type (string that has to be processed in some way, or pair-of-numbers that still has to be comparable for distance) complicates the overall system, without bringing a corresponding benefit (as far as I can see).
Received on Friday, 15 August 2014 06:53:28 UTC