[Bug 18634] Removing SourceBuffers in "Detaching from a media element"

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18634

Aaron Colwell <acolwell@chromium.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |acolwell@chromium.org

--- Comment #1 from Aaron Colwell <acolwell@chromium.org> 2012-09-21 21:39:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/media-source/media-source.html#mediasource-detach
> 
> "Remove all the SourceBuffer objects from sourceBuffers and fire a
> removesourcebuffer event for each one."
> 
> 1. What is the point of firing one removesourcebuffer event per removed
> SourceBuffer at the SourceBufferList?

I don't have a good reason especially since this event doesn't even indicate
which SourceBuffer is removed. I'll remove this since I can't think of any good
reason to have it fire multiple times.

> 
> 2. When is activeSourceBuffers updated, if at all? Depending on when it is
> updated the order of events would be different, which is script-visible and
> should therefore be part of a test suite for the API.

It gets updated when tracks from different SourceBuffers get enabled/selected.
I attempt to cover this in section 3.3.5, but I can see right now that I've
been a little sloppy here and don't mention when the events fire.

> 
> If there is a good answer for point 1, then point 2 could be addressed by
> specifying it to the equivalent of "while (sourceBuffers.length > 0)
> removeSourceBuffer(sourceBuffers[0])" or some such. In any event, it should be
> specified if the SourceBuffers are removed in increasing or decreasing order,
> since the difference in event order is script-visible.

Good point. Since I didn't have a good answer for 1 I get to avoid this. :)

-- 
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 Friday, 21 September 2012 21:39:21 UTC