- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 00:53:12 +1000
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Cc: \"Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Philip Jägenstedt<philipj@opera.com> wrote: > On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:22:38 +0200, Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl> > wrote: > >>> just came across this on whatwg. I think it also applies to our aspect >>> fragment addressing, right? >> >> Indeed. The aspect ratio is defined in our document as a way to crop an >> image to a centered area given the defined aspect ratio. We then write: >> "The original media is cropped either horizontally or vertically to the >> maximum size that has the given aspect ratio." >> I realize that we have no use case that clearly shows the need for such a >> feature. Perhaps we could add one, what do you think? > > Why does MF need to define any UI or rendering? If it does, it only risks > being subtly incompatible with other specs (notably HTML5). The scope should > be simply stating what the time range is, what the aspect ratio is and so on > and letting the rest be external to MF. MF can get created on the server - so the cropping takes place there. If it is not clear what cropping is done, then we get incompatible implementations and browsers will display different things for the same MF URI. I don't think that's desirable. Silvia.
Received on Saturday, 22 August 2009 14:54:06 UTC