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: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 18:23:28 -0800
Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.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: <104D8378-1BE0-4C58-A616-3FEDAE29D1A9@apple.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org

On Jan 3, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Robert O'Callahan 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.

Representing the different states as attribute values seems ok to me  
too.

I'm not totally convinced the "don't buffer" hint should also mean  
"don't load metadata" and "don't load the first frame even if the  
poster attribute is missing". In the use case that spawned this  
thread, namely a blog with embedded video, it seems likely you want to  
hint not to buffer, but you do want enough metadata for controls to  
show the right duration, since in this type of case controls are  
typically always visible.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 4 January 2010 02:24:02 GMT

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