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

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