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

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

From: Michael A. Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 22:29:09 -0500
To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Eric Carlson" <eric.carlson@apple.com>
Cc: Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u6aryuxr1ejg13@sandra-svwliu01>
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:19:13 -0500, Silvia Pfeiffer  
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>  
> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 8, 2010, at 3:09 AM, Kornel wrote:
>>
>>>> Would it not be better to abandon autobuffer, and support a buffer
>>>> attribute? With values of buffer="yes" buffer="no" and buffer="auto",
>>>> which would be equivalent to how browsers handle no autobuffer now?
>>>
>>> I suggest calling it preload (preload="no", preload="metadata",  
>>> preload="all"?).
>>>
>>  "all" is a poor choice because it may not be possible for the entire  
>> resource to be stored on the client machine, so you certainly don't  
>> want to preload the entire thing.
>>
>> eric
>
> I agree. Maybe "progressive" is the correct word? (nipped from
> "progressive streaming", of course)

I like @preload much much better than some attribute with "buffer" in its  
name. preload="no" and preload="metadata" sounds perfect to me. And,  
"progressive" does make more sense that "all".

-- 
Michael
Received on Sunday, 10 January 2010 03:29:42 GMT

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