- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:15:34 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <dd0fbad0810310615y762f33c8m43313eb4aaa13944@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > > Dean Jackson: > > We are interested in these features, but request changes. > > > > aspect-ratio and device-aspect-ratio > > ------------ > > > > We think these should take a number (float) rather than a ratio (defined > > as a string). While ratio gives the same result it doesn't seem worth > > introducing a new type just for these queries. > > Wouldn't that make it difficult (or impossible, since css3-values says > numbers are reals rather than particular precision floats) to match some > aspect ratios like 4:3? Wouldn't the author then be forced to write > something like: > > (min-aspect-ratio: 1.333) and (max-aspect-ratio: 1.334) Almost this exact discussion came up on the WHATWG list about <video> aspect ratios. ^_^ Ian has so far kept the aspect ratio a float. His argument is that the precision with which we store floats is *vastly* greater than the differences between aspect ratios in use today or in the relatively near future, and so the difference between a given ratio and the closest-approximation float is irrelevant. (And by the time they might get close, we can just upgrade it to a 64-bit float or something.) ~TJ
Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 13:16:15 UTC