On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> wrote: > On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Davy Van Deursen wrote: > > I've >>>> only been able to understand it as forcing the aspect ratio of the >>>> resource, rather than somehow modifying the resource (i.e. the exact >>>> same bytes should be sent). >>>> >>> >>> Well, not exactly. Converting formats of unequal ratios is done by >>> either cropping the original image to the receiving format's aspect >>> ratio (zooming), by adding horizontal mattes (letterboxing) or vertical >>> mattes (pillarboxing) to retain the original format's aspect ratio, or >>> by distorting the image to fill the receiving format's ratio. Depending >>> on the strategy, if done on server side, the server will not serve the >>> exact same bytes ... and possibly save some bandwidth (needs to be >>> measured though!) >>> >> >> In my opinion, different aspect ratio's of a media resource are different >> 'versions' of one media resource and not different 'fragments'. You can >> compare it with spatial scaling: as much as possible is done to preserve >> the >> full content of the media resource. The latter is not the case with >> fragments, where you select specific things of the media resource. So >> shouldn't we just drop the aspect identifier? >> > > Well, that's the crux of the issue of using ? vs # in case of transcoding > (and in the aspect ratio UC, it's quite likely to require transcoding, with > the existing formats). I disagree. You do not need to transcode an image if you want to display it with different width and height. It's a user agent thing. I think the same is true for video aspect ratio. Regards, Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2009 21:50:46 UTC