<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 11/23/10 5:06 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTikQWDF3TAG2psGRFQoB9N890e=PqT0vFg5_SWV5@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Kevin Marks <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kevinmarks@gmail.com">kevinmarks@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Well,
if we care about doing video processing with Canvas, understanding
anamorphic pixels is needed.</blockquote>
<div><br>
You mean the aspect ratio of the video source? Sure, but here we're
talking about the output device.<br>
<br>
Anyway, adding APIs to help browsers display better quality output on
NTSC or PAL TVs seems like a waste of time to me.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
TV use-cases seem like they'll become more prevalent, with Apple and
Google and their devices.<br>
<br>
I could imagine that some window managers might introduce strange
pixel-bending effects; but that's just imagination.<br>
I don't think we can speculate that much on output devices of the
future...<br>
<br>
In any case, I think we're just talking about limiting the scope of
support to exposing an X and Y ratio, instead of just exposing a single
value. If the scope goes further, yes it may be a waste of time.
Otherwise though, I think it's more a concern about
precision/conciseness than it is about an investment of time/resources.
That said, display technologies are over my head.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>