<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Ralph Giles <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:giles@xiph.org">giles@xiph.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:40 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Is that not enough?<br>
<br>
It is enough. Sander and Eduard have provided excellent arguments why<br>
the pixel aspect ratio, and especially the frame rate, should be<br>
represented as rationals in video formats. But as an override for<br>
already broken video streams compliance to best practice does not<br>
justify another data type in html5.</blockquote><div><br>Is an integer another data type? Also, having non-square pixels is not<br>broken. If we go this route, we might as well get rid of the distinction all together. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
To put Anne's comment another way, one needs a gigapixel display<br>
device before the difference between 1.0925 (rounded to only 5<br>
figures) and 59/54 affects the behaviour of the scaling algorithm at<br>
all. There aren't so many aspect ratios is common use--you're welcome<br>
to choose the one nearest to the floating point value given if you<br>
think it's important.</blockquote><div><br>I do not see why we are condoning hacks on top of hacks, when it is so simple<br>to just specify hSpace and vSpace.<br><br>-- Sander<br></div></div><br>
</div>