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

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

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 13:38:56 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f1001031338ld83f33sc17ba6a0eb680af5@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <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 Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Replace it with a single multi-state attribute like "buffering" instead.
>> Values "none", "auto" (the default) and "full", or similar. Unless there's a
>> cleaner way to represent the semantics "this is (un)likely to be used"....
>
> I'm still unconvinced three states will actually be needed, but this
> proposal sounds OK to me. At least it's forwards-extensible if more than two
> states do turn out to be needed.

The advantage with a separate 'noautobuffer' attribute is that if it
turns out that no UA starts using heuristics when no buffering
attributes are specified, the noautobuffer attribute effectively
becomes a no-op, and can be removed in the future.

/ Jonas
Received on Sunday, 3 January 2010 21:39:49 UTC

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