- From: Sander van Zoest <sander@vanzoest.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:31:44 -0700
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Ralph Giles <giles at xiph.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Sander van Zoest <sander at vanzoest.com> > wrote: > > > 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. > > I was responding to Ian's question against your original > pixelratio='59:54' proposal. > Do note, I also mentioned two attributes. I am just trying to say we need two 32-bit integers to express PAR, so we can do that however is appropriate. The only reason I liked the above is that it was keeping h &v together. I didn't realize that this was going to cause such a stir. I am willing to put forth the effort if it would help. > Shall I instead say, conforming to best practices doesn't justify two > interactive attributes here? :) Following that logic, why add the attribute at all? If it is going to be wrong, and require guessing to the nearest fraction by the user agent. It is rarely going to be used. Why not just force people to transcode the content to make it work correctly? Have them put it in a Ogg container while they are at it? -- Sander -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20081015/f18eec47/attachment.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2008 12:31:44 UTC