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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 23:06:03 -0800
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>, Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <F563430E-C711-415C-956D-48148733C31D@apple.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org

On Jan 2, 2010, at 10:47 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  
> wrote:
> It would have no visible effect other than performance, and the  
> difference would be much less in the typical test environment where  
> the author has a very fast pipe to his or her deployment server.
>
> The performance effect is very noticeable, and if your controls UI  
> shows the buffer state, it's quite obvious what's going on.

My experience is that content authors are much less likely to notice  
performance effects than visual effects, unless the performance  
difference is huge.

>
> One problem with making 'autobuffer' tri-state is that  
> autobuffer="off" (or whatever) is actually going to enable buffering  
> in user-agents that support the current autobuffer spec (i.e.,  
> Firefox).

That's why I suggested "nobuffer" instead of "autobuffer=off".

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Sunday, 3 January 2010 07:06:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:12 UTC