- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 12:12:13 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12643 --- Comment #7 from Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> 2011-05-10 12:12:12 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > At large, I have yet to see (or understand) a case where it's not sufficient to > > just go through the resource selection algorithm again and treat it as a > > quality-of-implementation issue how well a browser is able to reuse the data > > and decoding pipelines it already has. > > At the risk of sounding like all I ever do is agree with Philip, I agree with > this. Given that all the data is cached, this should be fast. (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > > I think for any change of fragment that doesn't indicate a time offset, we have > > to reset to currentTime=0. Including v.src=v.src. I don't think we need to > > re-load the resource even for a track change. > > Do you mean re-load as in re-transferring data over the network? If so, that > can be avoided simply by caching. If you mean going through the resource > selection algorithm again, I'm not sure I see why that would be a problem. > > At large, I have yet to see (or understand) a case where it's not sufficient to > just go through the resource selection algorithm again and treat it as a > quality-of-implementation issue how well a browser is able to reuse the data > and decoding pipelines it already has. Ah, maybe we were talking past each other. All I want to avoid is a retransfer of data over the network and reparsing of the media file. Maybe then I agree, too. :-) -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2011 12:12:14 UTC