- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:59:57 -0400
- To: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 11/09/2014 1:55 PM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote: > On 2014-09-11 19:48, cowwoc wrote: >> 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. > I agree, and I think we could go with Cullen's proposal, i.e. the spec > default (which currently means 1e-10. Everyone has a calculator at hand > I believe, so getting 10 decimals should not be hard. I just tested 1x1 through 76,800 (80k resolution) against that epsilon and the error margin is plus/minus 1.2 * 10^-7. Sounds good to me. Gili
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 19:02:30 UTC