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

Re: Public feedback on HTML5 video

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:34:26 +0100
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>, "Jeremy Keith" <jeremy@adactio.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u5s9nokasr6mfa@worf>
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:20:40 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:

> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>  > ...
>> It's really not what Gruber mentioned, though.  He, and the rest of
>> us, don't want a page with 3+ (or 50+) <video>s to start buffering all
>> of them.  That's obviously bad.  But grabbing a little bit of
>> information from each, to determine intrinsic ratios and duration?
>> That's both fine, and roughly on par with downloading an image.  We're
>> fine with the performance of 50+ images on a page, so why do we need
>> the ability to control <video> any more carefully?
>> ...
>
> Potentially because of servers without proper partial request (byte  
> range) support...

In such a case I think one can still decode the first frame and report the  
duration as +Inf (this is allowed per spec, and it is true if the resource  
is a live stream like a webcam).

The spec also allows stalling the fetching process at any point, including  
just before starting it. I do think that's somewhat useful and wouldn't  
mind implementing it, but the behavior should be an opt-in and  
autobuffer="off" is a poor name for it. Perhaps autobuffer should just be  
renamed?

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 31 December 2009 16:35:08 UTC

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