- From: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:07:00 +0200
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Cc: public-media-fragment@w3.org
On Apr 13, 2011, at 10:49 , Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:43:31 +0200, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> wrote: > >> On Sat, 9 Apr 2011, Jack Jansen wrote: >> >>> I'm not thrilled by extending the xywh syntax beyond what we have (pixels and integer percentages), nor by dropping percentages altogether. >> >> Same, integer percentages are not meant to do aspect adaptation, there was an 'aspect' keyword in earlier versions, and it was dropped, but maybe in version 2... >> Integer percentages are to address simple use cases, like "50%", not for complex things like aspect ration adaptation that may require some specific things (16:9 -> 4:3 is not always a fixed crop) > > What are the use cases for always cropping (say) 50% of the video with a precision that gets worse the bigger the video gets and where using the pixel syntax is not an option? Why would the precision get worse? -- Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 09:08:32 UTC