- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 09:45:30 +1000
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "public-media-fragment@w3.org" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On 10/04/2011, at 12:35 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > > 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. For URLs I see, that makes sense. Silvia.
Received on Saturday, 9 April 2011 23:46:11 UTC