- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:31:25 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "public-media-fragment@w3.org" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Jul 7, 2011, at 12:34 , Brad Kemper wrote: >> >> I agree that it's difficult to find a good answer. If we think the >> problem is essentially impossible, then we should just make it >> explicitly unsupported, not undefined. > > I agree that unsupported is better than undefined. But the fragments spec could also just define it, even if it is a bit arbitrary. For instance, I'd probably go with largest in area, then scale clipping based on relative proportions to that "largest size" of horizontal and vertical dimensions (independently) for smaller versions. Vector images are of potentially infinite resolution and there is no concept of "largest in area". David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2011 20:32:13 UTC