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: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 10:44:44 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02831001051544r47536d1and9a4601a632f63ae@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
> 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".

I'm happy with that.

All I absolutely wanted was an explicit specification of the two
states - "full" and "minimal". I would agree to add "auto" just to
give browsers the possibility to do whatever they like, which,
however, is equivalent to not mentioning the attribute, so not
necessary.

A third (fourth?) state of "nothing" struck me as necessary when ppl
started writing that they are replacing the video element with an
image and javascript to avoid loading anything at all. But I am happy
to ignore this situation until we have more statistics on what people
actually do.

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 23:45:36 UTC

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