- From: Sander van Zoest <sander@vanzoest.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:04:02 -0700
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Ralph Giles <giles at xiph.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:40 AM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > > > Is that not enough? > > It is enough. Sander and Eduard have provided excellent arguments why > the pixel aspect ratio, and especially the frame rate, should be > represented as rationals in video formats. But as an override for > already broken video streams compliance to best practice does not > justify another data type in html5. Is an integer another data type? Also, having non-square pixels is not broken. If we go this route, we might as well get rid of the distinction all together. > > > To put Anne's comment another way, one needs a gigapixel display > device before the difference between 1.0925 (rounded to only 5 > figures) and 59/54 affects the behaviour of the scaling algorithm at > all. There aren't so many aspect ratios is common use--you're welcome > to choose the one nearest to the floating point value given if you > think it's important. I do not see why we are condoning hacks on top of hacks, when it is so simple to just specify hSpace and vSpace. -- Sander -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20081015/f30ec981/attachment.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2008 12:04:02 UTC