- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 00:28:34 -0800
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Chris Double <chris.double at double.co.nz> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Peter Kasting <pkasting at google.com> wrote: >> I don't think it is the end of the world if this attribute goes in, but I >> see very little benefit to it, and I am always for removing items with >> marginal utility. > > I'm inclined to agree. I think it's odd that an attribute is being > added to fix video's encoded incorrectly. Why can't the author of the > video fix the actual video? > > One of the arguments for captions being embedded in video's rather > than having some way of defining captions by the page author was that > it's important not to use HTML to fix broken videos, and allow > captions to travel with the file. The same argument could be made for > pixel ratio. Fixing it in the HTML means everyone linking to the file > using <video> will need to remember to add pixelratio to their HTML. > Better to fix the file. > > Can someone provide examples of videos on the web that are currently > broken, and a pixel ratio that would fix it? As an HTML author that > wants to embed a video on my website I don't think I'd have any idea > how to come up with a pixel ratio to fix it. Another thing, if I as a website developer find a video that was encoded with the wrong pixel ratio, wouldn't the simplest, and most intuitive, way to fix it be to simply set a width and height on video until it looked approximately correct? Yes, it's a hack, and should not discouraged, but so is pixelratio. (haven't followed this discussion in detail so appologies if width/height has been disqualified already) / Jonas
Received on Monday, 1 December 2008 00:28:34 UTC