- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 01:07:23 +0100
- To: liam@w3.org
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Le 26/07/2013 19:36, Liam R E Quin a écrit : > On Fri, 2013-07-26 at 09:52 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: >>> I’m in favor of allowing two values (including specifying two in CSS.) If >>> the WG rejects that, use the horizontal one. > > If you use the horizontal one and ignore the vertical you'll get an > image that appears "stretched" and pixelated vertically. > > Correct would be to scale (resample) the image. > > E.g. if you have an image that's 300dpi horizontally and 200 dpi > vertically, e.g from a fax machine, and it's 600 x 400 pixels, it should > be displayed as a 2inch square. An implementation could do this by > scaling it down to 400x400 pixels and then using 400dpi as the > resolution, or by scaling it up to 600x600 pixels and using 300dpi. > > A print implementation can just pass on the differing values to the > renderer, which can quite likely handle this case as input to the > screening algorithm, or can use a transform without resampling. This seems like a convoluted way of saying than we should support two different X / Y values, which I agree is the right thing to do. (Whether there is one or more intermediate re-sampling is an implementation details.) But given that the less-complex version of this property is already at-risk, I was also suggesting a fallback plan in case some implementers reject the additional complexity. > Of course if no-one actually has any of these hypothetical images it > doesn't really matter. I've seen them from time to time - I suspect > they're not used on the Web much because browsers don't handle them. > > PNG can also have differing X and Y resolutions, by the way, which I've > only really encountered after making a mistake with a scanner. Earlier I missed that PNG supports resolution metadata at all because it doesn’t use that name, but yes, that should be supported as well. -- Simon Sapin
Received on Saturday, 27 July 2013 00:07:48 UTC