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: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:12:01 +1300
Message-ID: <11e306601001031312v3129cd0dh18b69014ceaae89c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Cc: Philip J├Ągenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>, Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Aryeh Gregor
<Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com<Simetrical%2Bw3c@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
> wrote:
> > The performance effect is very noticeable, and if your controls UI shows
> the
> > buffer state, it's quite obvious what's going on.
>
> The performance effect will typically be nonexistent when you're
> testing, because you're probably reloading the same page with the same
> video repeatedly as you make changes.  The video will thus remain
> buffered no matter what.
>

Firefox currently doesn't retain buffered media data across page reloads.

I encourage people to actually try some pages with <video> with and without
"autobuffer" in a browser that supports autobuffer.

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 21:12:34 UTC

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