W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2009

AW: Public feedback on HTML5 video

From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:11:38 +0100
Message-Id: <FF6AD6C11AA23F4F9866E9A3C57602ED9C2096@QEO00217.de.t-online.corp>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Jeremy Keith" <jeremy@adactio.com>
Cc: "HTMLwg" <public-html@w3.org>
Hi,

I like it,but would like to rephrase:

"...Its  absence tells the user agent that the media element will not be used."

It has to be explicit.

-- Kai

 
 

________________________________

Von: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Mo 28.12.2009 20:25
An: Jeremy Keith
Cc: HTMLwg
Betreff: Re: Public feedback on HTML5 video



On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com> wrote:
> Is the absence of the autobuffer attribute an explicit request not to
> pre-buffer?
>
> Currently, the spec doesn't clearly answer that question. It only describes
> what happens when the autobuffer attribute is present; it doesn't describe
> what happens when the autobuffer attribute is not present.
>
> Here is my suggestion for the updated text:
>
> "The autobuffer attribute is a boolean attribute. Its presence hints to the
> user agent that the author believes that the media element will likely be
> used, even though the element does not have an autoplay attribute. Its
> absence hints to the user agent that the author believes that the media
> element might never be used."
>
> This extra sentence ties the absence of the attribute to author intention:
> something that is currently missing.

This sounds like a good change that will clear up any confusion about
the intending meaning of @autobuffer.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 28 December 2009 21:15:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:55 UTC