On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: > 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. ;-) Then it is past time to file a bug, and begin moving this change through the process. > > 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%". > -- As long as everyone is agree that autobuffer becomes a non-conforming attribute, I have no problems with using a more meaningful attribute name. > leif halvard silli > ShelleyReceived on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 14:11:58 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:06 UTC