W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Should <video> buffer control be tri-state?

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 17:07:30 +1300
Message-ID: <11e306601001022007o34514b4ap9f19c741b9e4772b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, 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 Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:

> In the absence of any explicit attributes for buffer control, a likely good
> design would be to apply a heuristic. For example: if a page contains only
> one <video> element, then buffer aggressively. If it contains many, don't
> buffer any of them. Alternately, one could look at whether a particular
> video has larger explicit dimensions or appears in a more prominent place on
> the page. Since an unaware author is most likely not to add any special
> attributes, it would be nice to apply a heuristic like this when no special
> buffering-related attribute is present. Let's call this case (A).
>

I'm unconvinced a heuristic is needed. Shouldn't we wait and see if authors
actually fail to apply "autobuffer" when they should?

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 Sunday, 3 January 2010 04:08:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:57 GMT