- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 22:08:01 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18515 --- Comment #38 from David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> --- (In reply to Jerry Smith from comment #37) > I carried over timeupdate to be consistent with the readyState steps you > pointed out. > > The timeupdate event is supposed to fire when “The current playback position > changed as part of normal playback or in an especially interesting way, for > example discontinuously.” Based on that, I believe it should be removed > from the waiting steps in EME. Sounds good. > I also agree with updating the resume steps to handle the playing case. I > believe the model is to provide both the canplay and playing events. I > propose inserting the playing event as a new step 5: > > "5. If the element's paused attribute is false, the user agent must queue a > task to fire a simple event named playing at the element." Sounds good. We need to check that the resume was successful first, right? Maybe we need to restructure step 4 to block the new #5 as well (unless there is a separate condition for "playing". > Do you have specific race conditions you think we need to manage? Comment > 31 specifically mentions two update() calls close together while resume is > still in progress. This might result in out of order resume/wait outcomes. > Is that your area of concern? No, I haven't thought through the non-promises case since I wrote the changeset in comment #28. There were obviously some in the promises case, though. Let's address the items above then ask people to review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 22:08:03 UTC