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: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 18:19:11 +0100
To: Philip J├Ągenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100105181911379652.ffffac2d@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Philip J├Ągenstedt, Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:35:54 +0100:

> I support replacing the autobuffer attribute with a buffering attribute,
> Absence of autobuffer is replaced with buffering="auto" (um, this
> reversion *will* confuse, but oh well) while its presence is replaced with
> buffering="full". It's possible to add any number of states, but I don't
> support adding a third buffering="minimal" until it is shown in a browser
> that distinguishes between the first two states (e.g. Firefox 3.5)
> actually need a third state. If speccing only two states makes the change
> seem pointless, I would tend to agree, but at least it leaves the
> possibility of adding more states should they become necessary.
> 
> Note: I'm not saying that a "minimal" state will be pointless for all
> future, I'm saying that it's better to wait on a proof-of-concept
> implementation that does something useful before deciding what to call a
> new state and what its conformance requirements should be.

If we are to start with two values only, then why not "full" and 
"minimal" instead of "full" and "auto"? 'Minimal' is still only a word 
that means "as little as possible" - thus it is understandable that 
exactly how little depends on what the UA is able to do with the 
resources at hand.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 17:19:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:12 UTC