- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:13:33 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13871 --- Comment #16 from Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> 2011-08-26 13:13:31 UTC --- (In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #11) > > since I proposed that no exception be raised only when: > > > > readyState == HAVE_NOTHING && newTime == currentTime > > > > then it would not "break" the above code, which does not rely upon the > > exception when readyState == HAVE_NOTHING > > I think you have misunderstood Philip's example. The exception was not the > point. > The point is that the code expects to get a seeked event when the user clicks > on the controls, even if the user happens to click where the new seek position > matches the current position. I understood it. I also have previously pointed out that even without the change I propose that the code cannot rely upon the seek event, since if there is no seekable range (see step 7 under section 4.8.10.9), the seek process is aborted without generating a seeking event. So your point is a red herring argument. In any case, I'm limiting the effect of my proposed change on behavior of setting currentTime when readyState is HAVE_NOTHING, in which case the code could not have relied upon a seeking event in the first place. -- 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 Friday, 26 August 2011 13:13:34 UTC