W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > February 2011

[whatwg] Media elements statistics

From: Steve Lacey <sjl@chromium.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 00:02:56 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTikA2Sk4FgYwxj3yK+h4BmgAv=4VdfqQ_C1bGH7k@mail.gmail.com>
crickets...

I'll work on a proposal spec for this ;-)

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Steve Lacey <sjl at chromium.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Steve Lacey <sjl at chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Chris Double <chris.double at double.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Steve Lacey <sjl at chromium.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> But for the media element I'd like to propose raw bytes instead of a
>> >> rate as this allows the developer to construct their own rates (if
>> >> needed) based on whatever window they want. It would also be useful to
>> >> separate audio from video. A suggestion might be:
>> >
>> > Raw bytes sounds good.
>> >
>> >> unsigned long audioBytesDecoded;
>> >> unsigned long videoBytesDecoded;
>> >>
>> >> Though this seems a little strange to have these specifically on the
>> >> media element as they reference particular media types. Another idea
>> >> would be to move these to the video element and also add
>> >> audioBytesDecoded to the audio element.
>> >
>> > Moving them to the video and audio element would mean you can't get
>> > the audioBytesDecoded on a video element which is what I'm assuming
>> > you want by having the two values.
>>
>> Yeah - I'd also add audioBytesDecoded to the audio element, which is
>> an unpleasant dupe.
>>
>> >
>> > Note that the Mozilla implementation I proposed has had a counter
>> > proposal by another mozilla developer and is being developed further.
>> > See:
>> >
>> > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=580531
>>
>> Thanks. Taking a further look at that.
>>
>
> Reviving thread...
>
> I have an initial patch in webkit (http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/77394)
> and the chromium work is underway - I wonder what might be a good approach
> to drive the apis closer together towards a real spec that everyone is happy
> with?
>
> There seems to be a lot of general agreement here (at least in principal
> :-) that this is needed. We'll be doing a bunch of experimentation once this
> has landed in chromium.
>
> Cheers!
> Steve
>
Received on Saturday, 12 February 2011 00:02:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:04 UTC