- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 22:27:18 +1000
- To: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
FYI: there is a discussion about image sprites happening on the WHATWG mailing list and I've just had the following feedback on using #xywh for highlighting an image region rather than focusing in on it. We might want to change it or better explain our reasons for display choices. Cheers, Silvia. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com> Date: Sun, May 23, 2010 at 10:04 PM Subject: Re: [whatwg] Built-in image sprite support in HTML5 To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, David Weitzman <dweitzman@gmail.com> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > However, what exactly happens with a media fragment URI like > http://example.com/picture.png#xywh=160,120,320,240 is not fully > specified in the Media Fragment URI spec. > One thought was to just highlight the area that is specified - similar > to a lightbox - where the other areas in the image/video are darkened. > That follows the idea of fragments being a focus region. > Another thought is to zoom into that area and decode, but not display > the others. The first idea doesn't make any sense to me as an author. It seems like it would be vastly less useful than the second. It's just a stylistic effect, which you don't even have any control over -- and authors don't like being unable to control style precisely. What I'd expect is the second thing: that URL should behave exactly like a manually-cropped version of picture.png, so you don't have to use positioning hacks or serve a separate cropped file. This would be useful for spriting -- although resource packages, or another HTTP pipelining substitute, sounds like a still better idea.
Received on Sunday, 23 May 2010 12:28:13 UTC