On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 3:33 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> > wrote: > > Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >> ... > >> > >> It's really not what Gruber mentioned, though. He, and the rest of > >> us, don't want a page with 3+ (or 50+) <video>s to start buffering all > >> of them. That's obviously bad. But grabbing a little bit of > >> information from each, to determine intrinsic ratios and duration? > >> That's both fine, and roughly on par with downloading an image. We're > >> fine with the performance of 50+ images on a page, so why do we need > >> the ability to control <video> any more carefully? > >> ... > > > > Potentially because of servers without proper partial request (byte > range) > > support... > > That's fair. I wouldn't know how much, if any, of a problem this is > though. No one's mentioned it as an issue with implementations so > far. Firefox devs, is this a problem with your current > bandwidth-conservative approach? > No. If the transport is not seekable, we don't try to get the duration by seeking to the end of the resource, we just report the duration as unknown (if it's not available by other means). And if we decide we really need to download the resource (e.g., to play it), we just reread the first part of the resource. Rob -- "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]
Received on Thursday, 31 December 2009 21:19:12 UTC