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: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:05:07 +0100
To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: "Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u523t4yqsr6mfa@worf>
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:44:44 +0100, Silvia Pfeiffer  
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

I expect "auto" and be "minimal" to be equivalent, but I would have to  
agree that "auto" as a default is more intuitive. If all browsers treat  
auto as minimal then it's a redundant state, but oh well...

> 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.

I quite like this too. If this WG doesn't care for it, perhaps experiments  
with it could be done with a vendor prefix, like "-o-nothing".

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2010 00:05:46 UTC

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