- 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>
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