W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2012

Re: aspect-ratio property

From: Hugh Guiney <hugh.guiney@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 23:13:28 -0500
Message-ID: <CAEHyr+borkMJHEFxzg5aXYEo4A3nS_Wg13QTUM40Zh-0xx2-1w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
Yep, exactly.

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Hugh Guiney <hugh.guiney@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hope this isn't too divergent; spin-off the thread if necessary, but I
>> just read your proposed spec Tab (http://www.xanthir.com/blog/b4810),
>> and have some comments.
>>> You can use it to, for example, require that an HTML <video> element is as wide as its parent element at all times, but maintain a 4:3 ratio.
>>> However, several common ratios are usually expressed as fractions or explicit ratios, such as "16 by 9". These can be easily expressed using the calc() function, like aspect-ratio: calc(16/9);.
>> The problem with these is that in the video world, aspect ratio is a
>> lot more complicated. When somebody says "4:3" or "16:9", all you can
>> really be sure of what they mean is "frame size that is nearly as tall
>> as it is wide" and "frame size that is noticeably wider than it is
>> tall", respectively. The aspect ratios of video described in these
>> terms, more often than not aren't literally 4:3 or 16:9, due to
>> varying pixel aspect ratio dimensions.
>> I explained this problem in some detail on WHATWG a few years back
>> (first reply block):
>> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-December/024541.html
>> The problem is, if an author has a 720x480 pixel video, and specifies:
>>    max-height: 480px;
>>    aspect-ratio: calc(16/9);
>> What do they get? The blind mathematics are simple, but the correct
>> square-pixel width could be 853, 854, 856, 864, 873, or 875 depending
>> on the video specification being observed. And that's just on the
>> "NTSC" side; there are still other definitions for PAL-area video.
>> Most authors and even video professionals are oblivious to these
>> conflicting definitions so even if there were a way to specify the
>> standard manually it wouldn't be used.
>> Thus I think the best solution would be a rewording of the spec that
>> states the value of aspect-ratio is interpreted literally; that
>> depending on the video standard, the shorthands 4:3 or 16:9 may not
>> produce the correct ratio.
> So you'd just like a further note to that note, saying that videos are
> often not exactly 4:3 or 16:9 due to oddities in encoding standards,
> so beware when setting up ratios on dom elements depending on a video
> being the same size?
> ~TJ
Received on Friday, 6 January 2012 07:08:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:09 UTC