W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-diffs@w3.org > August 2009

hixie: elaborate on the note-to-self about video activation behaviour (whatwg r3525)

From: poot <cvsmail@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 19:22:18 +0900 (JST)
To: public-html-diffs@w3.org
Message-Id: <20090802102219.128852BBE6@toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
hixie: elaborate on the note-to-self about video activation behaviour
(whatwg r3525)


RCS file: /sources/public/html5/spec/Overview.html,v
retrieving revision 1.2722
retrieving revision 1.2723
diff -u -d -r1.2722 -r1.2723
--- Overview.html	2 Aug 2009 10:05:38 -0000	1.2722
+++ Overview.html	2 Aug 2009 10:21:55 -0000	1.2723
@@ -17381,8 +17381,19 @@
   is available; otherwise it is 150 CSS pixels.</p>
   <hr><!-- XXX (awaiting more impl experience)
-   default activation behavior is to do the play() if paused, pause()
-   otherwise
+   Make the default activation behavior be to do the play() if paused,
+   pause() otherwise?
+   The implementation experience that I am awaiting is basically, does
+   the above make sense? It would mean that the author could bind an
+   access key to the play/pause behaviour, but is that really useful,
+   when the author can just script the whole control if desired? It
+   would mean that if the author called .click() on the element, it
+   would play/pause the element, as well as firing an event. It would
+   also mean that while every other control could be controlled by the
+   user agent (when controls="" is set) and the author (via script),
+   clicking anywhere on the video, whether the element had a
+   controls="" attribute or not, would always play/pause the video.
+   It would also prevent putting a <video> in a link.
   --><p>User agents should provide controls to enable or disable the
   display of closed captions associated with the video stream, though
   such features should, again, not interfere with the page's normal
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 10:22:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:08:59 UTC