W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2008

[whatwg] video tag: pixel aspect ratio

From: Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:47:36 +0200
Message-ID: <69BEB01C94A945F2882B12C6340323AC@POCZTOWIEC>
Patterns may be ambiguous; an algorithm that is ambiguous would also be
dubious and thus easily identified and rejected.  Of course, patterns can be
proven to be precise, but using explicit algorithms is safer.
IMHO,
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: whatwg-bounces@lists.whatwg.org
[mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Eduard Pascual
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 5:22 PM
To: Ian Hickson
Cc: whatwg at lists.whatwg.org; Sander van Zoest
Subject: Re: [whatwg] video tag: pixel aspect ratio

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> This isn't expected to be used often. It's really only provided to allow
> for simple override of the actual value in the video file, for when the
> video file is known to be wrong. I am very reluctant to make up a whole
> new microsyntax and corresponding parser algorithm, along with all the
> tests, etc, to handle this one case.

I still don't understand why the spec has to define each and every
parser algorythm (IMO, it should only define the syntax, and then the
implementation should define its own algorythm that parses that syntax
as defined); but if that's the issue then a microsyntax can be
perfectly avoided by splitting the argument into two separate ones,
such as pixelratiox and pixelratioy.


Just my opinion.
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2008 09:47:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:06 UTC