Re: Public feedback on HTML5 video

On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Robert O'Callahan
>> <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
>>
>> > IMHO this entire thread is an overreaction to a Webkit bug. They'll fix
>> > the
>> > bug, meanwhile, everyone just relax :-).
>>
>> And Chrome.
>
> Chrome uses Webkit and probably just inherited the bug.
>
>>
>> Also, right now, with they way the spec is written, it's
>> not a bug, because it's spec conformant. This is the main issue I
>> have.
>
> At risk of repeating what Boris said: many quality-of-implementation bugs
> are not and should not be spec violations.

Except that I do not subscribe to the no-autobuffering being a
quality-of-implementation bug. It's either a feature and then needs a
specification or it's freedom of implementation and then it's not a
bug.

Anyway, I am repeating myself and I feel that the only change that is
acceptable to everyone is that we add to the description a description
of what is to happen when the autobuffering attribute is not present.
Something like (added last sentence):

"The autobuffer  attribute is a boolean attribute. Its presence hints
to the user agent that the author believes that the media element will
likely be used, even though the element does not have an autoplay
attribute. (The attribute has no effect if used in conjunction with
the autoplay attribute, though including both is not an error.) This
attribute may be ignored altogether. The attribute must be ignored if
the autoplay attribute is present. If the attribute is not present,
user agents will not buffer more than is absolutely necessary to
prepare the playback of the media element - they will in particular
not start buffering the complete media resource."

Best Regards,
Silvia.

Received on Friday, 1 January 2010 07:21:07 UTC