- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 04:08:21 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27980 Karl Tomlinson <bugs+w3@karlt.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |27982 --- Comment #2 from Karl Tomlinson <bugs+w3@karlt.net> --- One awkward consequence of updating duration to new duration after the range removal algorithm has completed is that the timing of the update depends on whether or not the range removal algorithm is run. If the setter is providing a new duration less than old duration, then the effect will not be seen until the update/updateend events have been queued, and so it would be prudent to wait for these events. However, if the new duration is not less than old duration then those events are not dispatched. Maybe there's a way to avoid that, and the problem already exists to some extant with steps 5 and 6 of the duration change algorithm for alignment with whole frames and updating the media controller as quoted in https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27982#c0 I wonder whether these consequences are sufficient to rethink the decisions of bug 18587 and instead aim to return to making the JS-visible effects of setting duration synchronous and not abort()able. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 16 April 2015 04:08:23 UTC