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

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

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 08:03:03 -0600
Message-ID: <643cc0271001050603l3ab77534v652575d300310880@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>, Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 5, 2010, at 5:23 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>
>>
>> Would it not be better to abandon autobuffer, and support a buffer
>> attribute? With values of buffer="yes" buffer="no" and buffer="auto",
>> which would be equivalent to how browsers handle no autobuffer now?
>
> In light of subsequent discussion, I agree that a multi-valued attribute
> would be best, since we don't necessarily know the number of states up
> front.
>
>>
>> The reason I ask this, is I'm going to file a bug if one has not been
>> filed--not to stop the discussion, but to ensure this important
>> concern does not fall through the cracks. And if others want to file
>> the bug instead, I won't -- I mainly just want to ensure this item is
>> recorded and goes through proper channels.
>
> I'm intending to file a bug as soon as the discussion is settled and I will
> outline the main approaches proposed in the discussion. I'm still holding
> off for a bit since discussion is still going.
>

I don't believe filing a bug precludes discussion, but that's fine if
you want to wait a couple of days to file the bug, cool.


> Regards,
> Maciej
>

Shelley
Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 14:03:36 GMT

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