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

Re: Browser implementations, prior to rec, used for justification

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 14:49:55 +0100
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Michael A.Puls II" <shadow2531@gmail.com>, "Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100105144955549417.e40723e6@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Shelley Powers, Tue, 5 Jan 2010 07:31:21 -0600:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 2010, at 15:14, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>> Are you saying that Firefox would be incapable of supporting something
>>> like a buffer="yes", buffer="no", or buffer="auto" (browser, use best
>>> judgement)?
>> No, that's *not* what I'm saying. Did you notice the last paragraph 
>> of http://www.w3.org/mid/124742CE-E050-4E88-ACE5-1613CC37E555@iki.fi 
>> ?
>> What I'm saying is that authors wouldn't be able to use 
>> autobuffer='off', autobuffer='false', autobuffer='no' to cause 
>> *less* traffic to their servers as long as there are browsers use 
>> that treat autobuffer as a boolean attribute.
> And autobuffer is from which released specification, where we have to
> worry about legacy use?

Note that he said "as long as". 
> Regardless, perhaps the best approach is a new attribute, and we
> encourage abandonment of autobuffer.

I think we have reached this conclusion for the second time now. ;-)

It was also mentioned that @buffer/@buffering also has other 
advantages. For instance, if we find out later that we want more than 3 
values for it. E.g. something like "autobuffer="50%" doesn't sound as 
intuitive as "buffer="50%".
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 13:50:30 UTC

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