W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2012

Re: [whatwg] <video preload> implementation feedback

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 08:04:42 +0200
To: Philip J├Ągenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "Chris Pearce" <cpearce@mozilla.com>, "Bjartur Thorlacius" <svartman95@gmail.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Message-ID: <op.wd01t4n4idj3kv@simons-macbook-pro.local>
Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Tue, 08 May 2012 18:59:29 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Philip J├Ągenstedt wrote:
>>
>> This is true, but as long as a few big browsers implement e.g.
>> preload="none" in a somewhat compatible way, it's hard to imagine page
>> authors not coming to depend on that behavior so that it becomes
>> required for web compat. It would be interesting to know if there are
>> counter-examples, any script-visible behavior that is allowed to vary
>> greatly between implementations without causing scripts to break.
>
> Images aren't required to load at all. Scripts aren't required to run at
> all. The window size is allowed to be any dimension at all. CSS isn't
> required to be supported at all. Users are allowed to apply arbitrary
> user style sheets. Users are allowed to interact with form controls by
> using the keyboard or the mouse or any other input device.
>
> All of these do break some pages.

That CSS is optional and that users are allowed to apply user style sheets  
didn't stop you from specifying the Rendering section in great detail.

Making <video> behavior underdefined just because users should be able to  
disable video loading in preferences just means that in a few years the  
behavior of the market leader needs to be reverse engineered and  
implemented by everyone else.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 06:05:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:08 GMT