Re: <video> feedback

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> The video size overrides the poster size if both are available.
>
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> > I don't think it makes much sense to start scaling the poster when the
> > video dimensions become available.
> >
> > Normally authors should ensure that the poster is the same size as the
> > video. If they don't, then I think we should change the size of the
> > video when we switch from displaying the poster to displaying the video.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. Surely the most important thing is to
> render the video at its native size in the absence of an override; the
> poster frame shouldn't affect this.
>

Yes, the most important thing is to render the video at its native size
*while we're displaying the video*. While we display the poster, we should
display it at *its* native size.

As currently specified, a slow-loading video with no size overrides, where
the video size is 200x200 and the poster size is 100x400, will go through
the following visual states:
1) nothing at 300x150
2) displaying the poster image at 100x400
3) displaying the poster image at 200x200 (whether it is scaled to fill the
square, or given aspect-ratio-preserving treatment, seems unclear in the
spec)
4) displaying the video at 200x200
State 3 seems unnecessary and undesirable.

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]