- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 02:00:33 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27242 --- Comment #2 from Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com> --- (In reply to Mark Watson from comment #1) > I think the principle should be that if the playback would stall at some > point, then this would be indicated as a gap in the buffer ranges, but if > playback would continue then there should be no gap. Agreed. > > Whether playback stalls or continues through a group of missing B-frames > could be implementation dependent, but the buffered ranges should correctly > indicate what the implementation is going to do if no more data is appended. Agreed. If an implementation chooses to stall though it seems like the P-frame should not be included in the buffered ranges until the B-frames arrive since exposing the P-frame portion would imply that we could transition to HAVE_CURRENT_DATA if you seek to the P-frame. It isn't clear to me that systems that need the B-frames to arrive would actually return the P-frame for display. Allowing the P-frame to be visible in the buffered ranges could be very confusing to application developers especially if the SourceBuffer has tons of data after the P-frame. They might not understand why the media element doesn't transition to HAVE_FUTURE_DATA or HAVE_ENOUGH_DATA if it appears like there is more than enough data to proceed. By keeping the P-frame out of the ranges util the B-frames arrive, I think it would be clearer to app developers that the SourceBuffer is still waiting for more data even though the P-frame was appended. WDYT? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2015 02:00:35 UTC