- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 10:41:49 +1100
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org
I agree with the use of pixels and cm for spatial fragment specifications. Maybe points, too, but I don't really see that as necessary. Cheers, Silvia. On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> wrote: > > During our last f2f, we discussed the applicability of some units and the > need to create a list for them. > We have two axis, the temporal axis, and the display axis. > > The temporal axis is currently debated (see the discussions on the list > regarding seconds (as real numbers) vs frame-oriented units. > > For the display axis, we rule out the units relative to the document it > would be displayed in (as the server has no way to know the document the > unit is relative to). So it leaves us with units relative to the > characteristics of the video/image presented: > > * Pixels > * percentages (as percentage of width and height) > > It would be interesting also to define only one axis (x or y), and define an > aspect ratio, like aspect(16:9), in that case the aspect ratio could be an > relative unit (relative to the other unit in use). > > * in, cm when the media gives the information about the relationship > between pixels and in/cm so in general not applicable. Do we want them ? > > All other units used in CSS (like pt, pc, em) are dependant on the > definition of pt, and linked in CSS2 to cm/in (as 1pt = 1/72 in), but a > fragment might be applicable to renderer not using this default, so I would > avoid those. > > -- > Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras. > > ~~Yves > > >
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 23:42:26 UTC