W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Change Proposal for ISSUE-147

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:17:06 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimUu_un+zLvF-Psw7y-ws4OmtB7EWS1-n_Uie2L@mail.gmail.com>
To: Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>
Cc: "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Frank Olivier
<Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> There are a number of reasons why a user agent may not be able to play a resource at the requested speed. For example:
> . On low power devices playback is sometimes off-loaded to hardware that is optimised for forward playback that does not efficiently support reverse playback.

There are lots of things that limited hardware can't handle; we have a
general "hardware limitations" clause for this.


> . Some media formats are not designed to be efficiently played in reverse.

HTML isn't designed to be efficiently rendered either, but we don't
make that optional. :-)


> . Setting playbackRate larger than 1.0 for live video will not work.

Sure it will, so long as the playhead is far enough back that there is
buffered content to play.


We discussed this in #whatwg earlier today, and it was suggested that
there aren't many use cases for playbackRate in the first place, so
that it not working wasn't a big deal. Is that true? If so, would it
be acceptable to just remove the feature entirely rather than
essentially making it optional? In general optional features are an
interoperability nightmare, so if we could avoid making this optional,
it would be much better IMHO.

-- 
Ian Hickson
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2011 01:17:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:26 GMT