- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 05:09:33 -0500 (EST)
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > 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. Meaning you are against using percentages ? > > 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 >> >> >> > -- Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras. ~~Yves
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 10:09:42 UTC