- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 15:11:12 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17004 --- Comment #4 from Aaron Colwell <acolwell@chromium.org> 2012-05-23 15:11:11 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Agreed that some of what is described here is already allowed in the proposed > API. I called them out only because they also put requirements on the user > agent to interpret certain sequences of API calls in a semantically specific > way. For example, it is important that the user agent playback the media > continuously and seamlessly even if a new initialization segment is injected. > I feel like we should call out the appropriate semantics so that user agents > implement the behavior consistently, since it would be easy to create a > simplified implementation that didn't handle these cases well. Ok. I was just giving examples to make sure I understood what you were talking about. I'll try to come up with some better text to convey that new initialization segments should be handled as seamlessly as possible. > > Regarding "tracking", if am not 100% sure that currentTime is sufficient for > the task. One issue I see is that it will be challenging for the application to > know when to check currentTime. Polling is an option, but polling always leads > to a tradeoff between responsiveness and efficiency. It would be nice if the > app would be notified as timeline boundaries were crossed, or maybe there was a > mechanism to introduce app-specified markers that would lead to a notification > as they were hit during stream play. I wonder if it would be better to handle this with a metadata TextTrack instead of something explicitly added to this API. You could add TextTrackCues when you append segments of interest. You could hook into the enter & exit events to get notified when the timeline enters & exits the cue time range. Would this be sufficient? -- Configure bugmail: https://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 Wednesday, 23 May 2012 15:11:19 UTC