- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:23:51 +0100
- To: "Aryeh Gregor" <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:56:39 +0100, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> > wrote: >> The only wiggle-room this leaves for implementation is whether to show >> the >> poster frame or the first video frame when the first video frame has >> been >> decoded. I think it should be the poster image, if other browser vendors >> agree perhaps the spec should simply say that. > > That seems sensible to me as well. Why would implementations show the > first video frame if a poster is explicitly provided? > >> If the author doesn't want to use a poster image they simply shouldn't >> use >> that attribute. To show a certain frame of video, set .currentTime in a >> script. > > That's not equivalent. In particular, it will change what happens > when the user hits play, and will probably change what gets buffered. > Not to mention it requires script. > > Perhaps someone should suggest to the Media Fragments WG that they > should create a syntax where you can address a frame of a video like a > picture? The current WD doesn't seem to allow it: > > http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/ Shouldn't using e.g. #t=10,10 do just that? -- Philip Jägenstedt Core Developer Opera Software
Received on Monday, 28 December 2009 23:21:39 UTC