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

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

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 00:42:47 +0100
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>
Message-ID: <20100104004247914287.ee6a02a3@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Robert O'Callahan, Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:15:20 +1300:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Philip Jägenstedt 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.

+1 for the name. @buffer or @buffering seems like a better name(s) than 
@autobuffer.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 4 January 2010 00:07:05 GMT

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