- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:32:13 +0100
- To: "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "Dean Jackson" <dino@apple.com>, "Bert Bos" <bert@w3.org>
- Cc: Www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:23:37 +0100, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: >> This syntax has been stable for over six and half year (for >> device-aspect-ratio). Do we really want to fiddle with that? (There are >> two implementations too.) > > Isn't HTML5 going to stick to floats for the video element's pixel > aspect ratio ? [1] Does SVG ever need to define this as well ? There may > be very good reasons to express aspect ratios in different ways based on > industry practice, data formats, the unit being described, existing > implementations etc. I have no opinion on which format is better but I'm > asking if specs should try to align as authors' lives may be marginally > more difficult if some aspect ratios must be set as floats and others as > fractions. > > [1] > http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-October/016588.html See e.g. http://www.w3.org/mid/490DF583.20807@mit.edu (using a float versus doing equality testing with it are different things). I talked it over with Håkon today and the person responsible for implementing Media Queries in Opera. We feel that the 'orientation' feature is actually sufficient and we could do away with 'aspect-ratio' and 'device-aspect-ratio'. The use cases for not caring so much about screen size, but wanting to know something about the aspect ratio seem to be about orientation. Are there strong reasons for keeping the aspect ratio related features other than 'orientation'? -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2008 16:33:04 UTC