W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2008

Re: bufferingThrottled and bufferingRate

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:40:26 +0100
To: Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1227188426.16253.5.camel@localhost>

I would agree that at least bufferingThrottled no longer serves any
purpose. Since NETWORK_IDLE is now used only "when a media element's
download has been suspended" checking for this state should be enough.

As for bufferingRate, I would support removing it because it isn't
obvious that it is of any use now that the bufferedBytes attribute is
gone. Tracking the buffered and seekable TimeRanges would seem a much
better way of determining by script when to pause and play. Note however
that removing bufferingRate doesn't hide the information about the
servers bandwidth -- a script could still track progress events if they
really wanted to.

Philip

On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 19:53 -0800, Eric Carlson wrote:
> 
>    Can someone explain why we need the "bufferingRate" and  
> "bufferingThrottled" media element attributes?
> 
>    I believe the rational is that scripts might want to attempt to  
> implement bandwidth management, but I don't think that is a realistic  
> goal. Just knowing that a user has "unused" network bandwidth doesn't  
> mean they will be able to decode and display a higher bit-rate stream,  
> they also need to have "unused" cycles on the CPU/GPU - something a  
> script can't detect.
> 
>    Is there another use case for these attributes? Does anyone think  
> they are necessary for the first version of the spec?
> 
> eric
> 
> 
-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2008 13:41:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:24 GMT