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