- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:53:21 -0400
- To: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- CC: www-style CSS <www-style@w3.org>
Christoph Päper wrote:
>
> fantasai:
>> Fuzzy Matching
>
> I just proposed keywords (and floats) for this. Specified inexact
> matches are the more universal approach, though.
>
>> * For 'min-aspect-ratio' and 'max-aspect-ratio', if the actual
>> aspect ratio is between 1/12 and 12/1 then the UA may round
>> the actual aspect ratio to the nearest of:
>
> What is the reason for choosing 12? Pretty much every aspect ratio ever
> used in practice lies between 0.08(3) and 12, unless I'm missing something.
To come up with a list of discrete aspect ratios I needed a limit.
I figured most denominators in use would fall between 1 and 12, so
I drew the limit between 1/12 and 12/1. Rounding a ratio of 20/1
to 12/1, the nearest in the list, would be silly.
>> * the nominal ratio of any paper size listed in tables 3-8
>> of [PWGMSN] in either portrait or landscape orientation
>> * any ratio {1..(2N-1)}/N where N ∈ {1..12}[1]
>> * the inverse of the above
>
> Portrait already is the inverse of landscape.
Hm, I meant that to apply only to the second rule. :)
>> - Changing 5% to some other %
>
> I heard rumours, which might well be wrong, that EICTA chose a 7% margin
> for the requirements of their HD Ready logo to allow 17:9 and 15:9
> display of 16:9 data. In my opinion, that is too fuzzy a match; perhaps
> even 5% is too much.
What would you suggest?
~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:53:39 UTC