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

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

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:07:27 +0200
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <2510A909-52CB-4E77-8EC7-47F41E6CA4AC@iki.fi>
To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
On Jan 5, 2010, at 18:35, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:

> 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".

Would you consider a new buffering attribute better than using the existing attributes as follows?

 * If the autobuffer attribute is present, select "full buffering strategy" and abort these steps.
 * If the poster attribute is present, select "no buffering strategy" and abort these steps.
 * Otherwise, select "partial buffering strategy".

Where the strategies are as follows:
"full buffering strategy": Buffer the video fully (or less if fully buffering would hit cache size limits).
"no buffering strategy": Don't request any piece of the video at all before the video is played.
"partial buffering strategy": Request enough of the video to be able to decode the first frame and (format permitting) discover the duration.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2010 10:08:13 GMT

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