You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The requirement for success in the first step of [compute containment scaling] and [compute over scaling] is that the units of TR and RR are the same, but this is rarely likely to be the case.
Propose replacing with a step to re-express image dimensions in the document coordinate space so that the resulting units are always the same.
In terms of units, there's no way any image resource will sensibly have, say, rw or % units, unless some processing step upstream has deliberately taken the intrinsic dimensions and re-expressed them in those units to get to TR. If the intent is to constrain document instances to express positions and sizes in pixels if they use embedded images, it's a strange way to achieve that goal.
skynavga
changed the title
[compute containment|over scaling] likely to fail
Semantics of [compute containment|cover scaling] failure modes.
Jun 3, 2019
skynavga
changed the title
Semantics of [compute containment|cover scaling] failure modes.
Semantics of units employed by [compute containment|cover scaling].
Jun 3, 2019
The requirement for success in the first step of
[compute containment scaling]
and[compute over scaling]
is that the units of TR and RR are the same, but this is rarely likely to be the case.Propose replacing with a step to re-express image dimensions in the document coordinate space so that the resulting units are always the same.
Originally posted by @nigelmegitt in #1098
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: