W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Should <video> buffer control be tri-state?

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 20:42:12 -0800
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>, Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <E47D17DC-16B7-47A4-A5B7-C564193AA6A9@apple.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org

On Jan 2, 2010, at 8:07 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  
> wrote:
> In the absence of any explicit attributes for buffer control, a  
> likely good design would be to apply a heuristic. For example: if a  
> page contains only one <video> element, then buffer aggressively. If  
> it contains many, don't buffer any of them. Alternately, one could  
> look at whether a particular video has larger explicit dimensions or  
> appears in a more prominent place on the page. Since an unaware  
> author is most likely not to add any special attributes, it would be  
> nice to apply a heuristic like this when no special buffering- 
> related attribute is present. Let's call this case (A).
> I'm unconvinced a heuristic is needed. Shouldn't we wait and see if  
> authors actually fail to apply "autobuffer" when they should?

If we add a way for page to hint that no buffering is needed, we can  
each act on our opinions as to whether a heuristic is needed, since  
you can treat lack of attribute the same as the "no buffer" hint. But  
if we don't add the third state, then either I can't add the heuristic  
that I think is best for overall user experience, or authors have no  
reliable way to opt out of buffering. It's true that, if you are  
right, we end up with a no-op attribute, if we add nobuffer. But in  
the meantime we could actually do the experiment of trying both ways.

Personally, I think it's highly likely that many authors will omit  
autobuffer out of carelessness, and not as a signal of intent. It  
would have no visible effect other than performance, and the  
difference would be much less in the typical test environment where  
the author has a very fast pipe to his or her deployment server. In  
such circumstances, I don't see how we can possibly treat *lack* of an  
attribute as a strong indicator of author intent. It's much more  
likely to mean the author simply hasn't thought about the issue.


Received on Sunday, 3 January 2010 04:42:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:06 UTC