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

Re: Public feedback on HTML5 video

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 00:39:05 +1300
Message-ID: <11e306600912310339j56c8eebel1063632d8c224264@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Philip J├Ągenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>, Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 6:17 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> So, browser devs, do you think that, if autobuffer=off was supported
> and present, you would treat it any differently than if autobuffer was
> missing entirely?


As Chris D said --- no.

Browser vendors already have ample incentives to conserve bandwidth. Apart
from anything else, it's useful to be able to load a page with 50 <video>
elements in it and not grind to a halt. Since "autobuffer" exists to signal
that the video is likely to be played, one must treat absence of autobuffer
as a signal that the video is unlikely to be played, and it's obvious that
the correct response to the latter signal is to conserve resources by not
buffering. Arguably this could be made a little clearer in the spec.

IMHO this entire thread is an overreaction to a Webkit bug. They'll fix the
bug, meanwhile, everyone just relax :-).

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]
Received on Thursday, 31 December 2009 11:39:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:56 GMT