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

Re: Public feedback on HTML5 video

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:51:43 +0100
To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Philip J├Ągenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>, "Jeremy Keith" <jeremy@adactio.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u5sq0hqx64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:44:00 +0100, Silvia Pfeiffer  
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 4:17 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> I think I'd like to see video durations and such for all videos, even
>> if they're not autobuffered.  If you *really* don't want *anything*
>> video-related to download, the best thing to do is simply not put a
>> video in the page.  Just use a thumbnail with a link to the video,
>> possible with js to replace the thumbnail with a <video> element for
>> quicker turnaround (this has already been explored in this thread).
> Yes, a js workaround is possible. But when a feature can be added in
> such a simple way rather than having to do a js workaround, why not do
> it? Isn't HTML5 about avoiding many of the js workarounds that ppl had
> to deal with in HTML4? Are we just going to force ppl to make
> workarounds for such simple things for the new HTML5 elements again?

The reason not to add it would be the same reason we do not add hundreds  
of other seemingly trivial features, they make matters more complex. Is it  
a really common use case not to want any initialization at all for the  
video? Not having the element/link in the page does seem like a good  
solution to that problem, to prevent plugins, search engines, etc. to take  
hold of it.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Thursday, 31 December 2009 09:52:37 UTC

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