- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:46:28 -0700
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@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 Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:31 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > 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". Vector image formats and multi-resolution image formats are a disjoint set currently, right? ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2011 20:47:15 UTC