- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 12:34:53 +1100
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Philip Jägenstedt <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 10:39 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > 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. I think that's the minimum that needs to be done. I'd be happy with that, but it has to be spelled out clearer in the spec. > IMHO this entire thread is an overreaction to a Webkit bug. They'll fix the > bug, meanwhile, everyone just relax :-). And Chrome. Also, right now, with they way the spec is written, it's not a bug, because it's spec conformant. This is the main issue I have. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Friday, 1 January 2010 01:35:45 UTC