- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:15:18 -0400
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
The decision follows. The chairs made an effort to explicitly address all arguments presented in the Change Proposals on this topic in addition to arguments posted as objections in the poll. *** Question before the Working Group *** There is a basic disagreement in the group as to whether or not there is a need to enable scripts to reliably detect when an unsupported playbackRate has been requested, and if so, how such information should best be exposed to the scripts. The result was an issue, three change proposals, and a straw poll for objections: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/147 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0113.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0357.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0682.html http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-147-objection-poll/results Additionally, one of the authors of a Change Proposal indicated during the course of the survey that they were willing to withdraw the proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0709.html As we have no way of knowing whether or not this proposal has other supporters, this offer to withdraw has no affect. == Uncontested observations: With three proposals, we don't generally expect much to be untested. Unsurprisingly the only thing we find of general agreement is as follows: Browsers already vary in this respect This observation was not decisive. There were people who supported different proposals even after taking this fact into consideration. The fact that this were acknowledged up front was appreciated. === Evaluation of Objections While we have three proposals, we have a low number of expressed objections, so the best way forward is simply via brute force enumeration. The first proposal is to "describe what to do if the user agent is unable to play media at the requested rate". The first objection to that proposal is from an implementor: As an implementor of the <video> element, I don't think we can implement this in general; we won't know whether we can maintain a given playback rate until we try to play back at that rate. Even then, whether we can sustain the rate will vary from moment to moment. While there were additional objections made against this proposal, this clearly is a very strong objection. We can then proceed onto the next proposal to see if it attracts a stronger objection. The next proposal is to "introduce requestedPlaybackRate/ actualPlaybackRate to the HTML5 spec". Stated objections include: This proposal seems under-specified. In particular it is unclear how the "actualPlaybackRate" should be computed, in particular what time window should be used. Given that actualPlaybackRate can vary from moment to moment, it's unclear how scripts should use it. And actualPlaybackRate may not be adequate to reflect the quality of the user experience; e.g. if the UA plays a the requested playback rate, but only at one frame per second, should we report actualPlaybackRate == requestedPlaybackRate and let the script assume everything is OK? and No use case is given for script to be able to access the requestedPlaybackRate after attempting to set the playback rate. While these are strong objections, they are not as strong as the objection to specifying behavior that at least one vendor can't implement. Finally, we have the Change Proposal to "consider the inability to play at a given playback rate a hardware limitation and not expose it via a dedicated API". This proposal attracted no objections from the survey. From the positive effects of the other proposals, we infer the following objection: Script can't reliably detect when an unsupported playbackRate has been requested Lacking a concrete use case, this objection was not found to be strong. It certainly isn't as strong as either an objection based on under-specification or based on lack of implementability. Additionally we have objections on the basis that it would break the ability of Web apps to be able to tell when the user has switched to "fast forward" mode, would be incompatible with a situation in which the user agent _can_ apply the requested rate for some part of the media but not all of it, would have the UA ignore requests that could partially be satisfied, and the fact that it is only possible after the detect after the fact that a particular rate is not supported. The strength of these claims were not evaluated further as they could only further support the "Consider inability to play at a given playback rate a hardware limitation and don't expose it via a dedicated API" Change Proposal and thus were not needed in order to identify the proposal that draws the weakest objections. *** Decision of the Working Group *** Therefore, the HTML Working Group hereby adopts the "Consider inability to play at a given playback rate a hardware limitation and don't expose it via a dedicated API" Change Proposal for ISSUE-147: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0682.html Of the Change Proposals before us, this one has drawn the weaker objections. == Next Steps == Bug 10837 is to be REOPENED and marked as WGDecision. Since the prevailing Change Proposal does call for a spec change, the editor is hereby directed to make the changes in accordance to the change proposal. Once those changes are complete ISSUE-147 is to be marked as CLOSED. == Appealing this Decision == If anyone strongly disagrees with the content of the decision and would like to raise a Formal Objection, they may do so at this time. Formal Objections are reviewed by the Director in consultation with the Team. Ordinarily, Formal Objections are only reviewed as part of a transition request. == Revisiting this Issue == This issue can be reopened if new information come up. Examples of possible relevant new information include: * Use cases which require scripts to be able to determine the playbackRate of a given video.
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 18:15:43 UTC