- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 13:45:40 -0400
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 11/09/2014 12:21 PM, bugzilla@jessica.w3.org wrote: > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26526 > > Jan-Ivar Bruaroey [:jib] <jib@mozilla.com> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |jib@mozilla.com > > --- Comment #3 from Jan-Ivar Bruaroey [:jib] <jib@mozilla.com> --- > I think the existing epsilon covers inaccuracies in double just fine, and that > arguments to change it were in the opposite direction, chasing the problem of > interpreting expectations correctly of people entering decimals by hand. > > I believe Harald proposed 1/1000 [1], and I indicated perhaps 1/100 as being > better, citing wikipedia [2] as evidence that accuracy-needs on aspect don't > rise with higher resolutions. > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2014Aug/0056.html > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/2014Aug/0084.html > I believe your reasoning is still flawed. You shouldn't evaluate the "goodness" of an epsilon by looking at a handful of resolutions as you've done. You need to evaluate the epsilon against the entire resolution space from 1x1 through 16k. For example, what happens when a user asks for an aspect ratio of 8/12? He might be aiming for 800x1200 but you'll give him 788x1200 for an epsilon of 1/100. That's a huge error margin. Gili
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 17:48:09 UTC