- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 13:21:27 -0700
- To: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org, public-media-fragment@w3.org
On 10/05/2011 01:59 AM, Raphaël Troncy wrote: > Dear Tab, Fantasai, > >>> Follow-up of this thread, the Editor Draft now states (section 4.2.2), >>> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#naming-space: >>> >>> "Note that in the case of pixel-based clipping areas, application of those >>> areas to multi-resolutions visual media is unsupported. More generally, >>> pixel-clip an image that does not have a single well defined pixel >>> resolution (width and height) is not recommended." >>> >>> Do you agree with this reformulation? >> >> What does "not supported" imply? Does it just give the entire image >> then, ignoring the "fragment" part of the request entirely? >> >> If so, that's fine with me. I request that it be stated something >> more like the following, though: >> >> "If the clipping region is pixel-based and the image is >> multi-resolution (like an ICO file), the fragment MUST be ignored, so >> that the url represents the entire image." >> >> This specifies a specific, testable behavior. > > I would like to let you know that your suggested rephrasing has been included in the specification, see > http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#naming-space. We have assumed that we have addressed your > comments in our disposal of comments now that this document is transitioning to Candidate Recommendation. Looks alright to me. I presume Tab's ok with it, too, since he wrote the text there. ;) ~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2011 20:24:39 UTC