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: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 01:57:57 +0100
To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100106015757628172.cfee2ace@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Philip Jägenstedt, Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:05:07 +0100:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:44:44 +0100, Silvia Pfeiffer:
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Philip Jägenstedt :
>>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:19:11 +0100, Leif Halvard Silli:
>>>> Philip Jägenstedt, Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:35:54 +0100:
   [...]
>> 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".

I think many in the WG would be very positive about a "nothing" value. 
As for statistics etc, then for example the popular open source Flash 
player Flowplayer recommends image and javascript as the most important 
way to embed flash with their player. [1][2]

Quote from [2]: "Absolutely killer feature of Flowplayer is the ease of 
installing multiple players on a page without any loss of performance."

Flowplayer has a focus on hosting on one's own server rather than on 
sites like Youtube [3].

[1] http://flowplayer.org/demos/installation/splash-image.html

[2] http://flowplayer.org/demos/installation/multiple-players.html

[3] http://flowplayer.org/documentation/index.html

-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2010 00:58:32 UTC

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