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

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

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 13:49:51 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02831001031849i5b68000dg72d9376d901b4279@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>, Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:15 AM, 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.

I'm happy with this, too. I don't really see a need to rename the
attribute, but if that's the consensus, I'm happy with it.
I guess, leaving away the buffering attribute then just means to leave
the decision to the browser, which would probably equate to "auto"?

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Monday, 4 January 2010 02:50:43 GMT

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