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

Re: AW: Public feedback on HTML5 video

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:23:51 +0100
To: "Aryeh Gregor" <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Cc: "Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u5n8l1r8sr6mfa@worf>
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:56:39 +0100, Aryeh Gregor  
<Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>  
> wrote:
>> The only wiggle-room this leaves for implementation is whether to show  
>> the
>> poster frame or the first video frame when the first video frame has  
>> been
>> decoded. I think it should be the poster image, if other browser vendors
>> agree perhaps the spec should simply say that.
>
> That seems sensible to me as well.  Why would implementations show the
> first video frame if a poster is explicitly provided?
>
>> If the author doesn't want to use a poster image they simply shouldn't  
>> use
>> that attribute. To show a certain frame of video, set .currentTime in a
>> script.
>
> That's not equivalent.  In particular, it will change what happens
> when the user hits play, and will probably change what gets buffered.
> Not to mention it requires script.
>
> Perhaps someone should suggest to the Media Fragments WG that they
> should create a syntax where you can address a frame of a video like a
> picture?  The current WD doesn't seem to allow it:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/

Shouldn't using e.g. #t=10,10 do just that?

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Monday, 28 December 2009 23:21:39 UTC

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