- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:27:41 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10642 --- Comment #85 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 2010-11-15 21:27:40 UTC --- (In reply to comment #84) > (In reply to comment #83) > > (In reply to comment #81) > > > one of the ideas I have discussed with some people is having the poster > > > attribute accept an ID which can be the ID of an <img> element anywhere on the > > > page. In this way a new element/attribute is not required as the alt of the > > > <img> will be the alt for the poster. > > > > It seems unlikely that the poster frame would be displayed as an image in a > > separate place on the page. The whole point of the poster frame is that it is a > > temporary placeholder for the video, and it goes away as soon as the video > > starts playing. > > i guess my thinking was more that it would be in the video element, so could > also serve as fallback if video was not supported. It's unlikely that the poster frame would make good fallback for the video-no-supported case. It's supposed to be an affordance for starting the video. If the user's browser doesn't support HTML5 video, then instead of something to represent the not-yet-playing video, it would be more appropriate to show a message that video is not supported, or an alternate playback mechanism, such as a plugin-based video player. It's not really very likely that a visible version of the poster frame would be in the fallback. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 15 November 2010 21:27:42 UTC