- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 18:41:29 -0400
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- CC: "'public-html'" <public-html@w3.org>
John Foliot wrote: > Much earlier in this thread, Ian Hickson wrote: "...we have an explicit > "autoplay" attribute which we should be encouraging authors to use > instead.", to which I responded that we shouldn't be _encouraging_ authors > to use autoplay - period. (we should instead be suggesting that in-page > media not autoplay, but leave the final decision to the author - providing > the UA's can over-ride the author's suggestion). Ah, I see. I guess in my proposal it doesn't matter much which one the page uses; they get treated identically. The benefit of autoplay="" is that it works even with script disabled. I think the right message is "in-page media should not autoplay, but if you must have it autoplay, use the declarative method of doing so". >> The UI and interaction details would be up to the UA, of course; the >> spec would allow such behavior, but not require it. > > I thought you were talking about a client-side scripted feature[*], and was > saying instead that it needs to be a UA feature, which is what you just > said. Yes, exactly, this is what we should have. > > [*] "... allowing the script _some_ way...", "... window.open restrictions > are heuristics that differ in different browsers..." Oh, I see. Yeah, there are both features here. There's a client-side scripted feature: the ability to call play(). There's a UA feature: the ability to intercept such calls made in contexts where the user probably did not ask for them and take user preferences and possibly a user prompt into account when deciding whether to honor them. The heuristic part comes in when making the "user probably did not ask for them" decision. -Boris
Received on Saturday, 6 June 2009 22:42:09 UTC