Re: [whatwg] Built-in image sprite support in HTML5

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:01 AM, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl> wrote:
>
> On 25 mei 2010, at 14:05, RaphaŽl Troncy wrote:
>
>> Hi Silvia,
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Thanks for passing this on. The current WD says very little about the display of a spatial Media Fragment. I quote:
>>
>> "For a spatial URI fragment, it is recommended to emphasize the spatial region during playback. For instance, the spatial region could be indicated by means of a bounding box or the background (i.e., all the pixels that are not contained within the region) could be blurred or darkened."
>>
>> Therefore, the highlighting is *just* an example. We can decide to stay very fuzzy on this or on the contrary recommend some display.
>
> I'm all for being fuzzy. We have to: we don't know the application, so we can't dictate what the application should do.
>
> This is just as true for #t=10,20 as for #xywh, by the way. Our suggestion of highlighting the part of the timeline that's relevant only holds for applications that have such a timeline, and which allow user interaction in the first place.
>
> I think we have to say something like "using a fragment id on an html document usually does it in this way. Unless you have a good reason to do it differently we suggest you follow the same principles for media fragments".


I would prefer not to even reference html if we can avoid it. I think
the HTML spec needs to say itself what it recommends browsers to do.
That's also what I told the whatwg. But we can explain different
options and recommend which one makes sense in which case/environment.

Cheers,
Silvia.

Received on Wednesday, 26 May 2010 03:46:24 UTC