- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 17:23:17 +0200
- To: public-media-fragment@w3.org
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 15:05:43 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, I think we need to be more specific. My suggestion is to round > up, but am curious what ppl think. Do you mean that if the original rect (x, y, w, h) is (10.4, 20.5, 30.5, 40.6), that all values are rounded up to give (11, 21, 31, 41)? That would cause a whole row and colums of pixels to the right and bottom to be included that might not have been intended. To avoid adding up rounding errors from x+w or y+h, I would prefer transforming the (x, y, w, h) to a (left, top, right, bottom) representation (10.4, 20.5, 40.9, 61.1) and work on that. I would prefer one of: 1. rounding all values, giving (10, 21, 41, 61) -- closest fit 2. rounding "outwards", giving (10, 20, 41, 62) -- always includes the entire targeted region 3. rounding "inwards", giving (11, 21, 40, 61) -- never includes anything outside the targetet region Some consistency with how CSS works would be great here, but I don't know how CSS works. -- Philip Jägenstedt Core Developer Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 15:23:46 UTC