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

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

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:20:04 +0100
To: "Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u52nvopcsr6mfa@worf>
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:19:11 +0100, Leif Halvard Silli  
<xn--mlform-iua@målform.no> wrote:

> Philip Jägenstedt, 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.

I wouldn't mind that if the absence of the attribute or any unknown value  
is equivalent to "minimal".

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 18:18:57 GMT

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