- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 07:35:17 -0700
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
On Apr 9, 2011, at 4:11 , Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:24:33 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer >> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The pixel syntax operates on the intrinsic size of the video, not the >>>> display size. The result would be the same regardless of fullscreen, >>>> modulo >>>> scale of course. >>> >>> >>> Is this how image maps work, too? >> >> Oddly enough, according to >> <http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/the-map-element.html#processing-model>, >> "For historical reasons, the coordinates must be interpreted relative to the >> displayed image, even if it stretched using CSS or the image element's width >> and height attributes." >> >> I don't think we should copy this quirk, though. > > I don't actually know which is easier to understand for authors. I'm > quite torn on this. The author might not have complete control; a user style sheet might have made the video larger or smaller, for example. I think the only thing the author knows for sure is the size he's supplying it at... David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Saturday, 9 April 2011 14:35:46 UTC