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 11:08:18 +1300
Message-ID: <11e306601001031408m227dd165q8f2fa29809aec87e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
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 10:38 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> 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.
>

But a) negative attributes suck b) defining what happens when "noautobuffer"
and "autobuffer" are both specified sucks and c) I suppose it's possible
that even if we don't need more than two states in the near future, some
other need might come along later.

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 22:08:50 GMT

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