- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:48:07 +1000
- To: Chris Double <cdouble@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Chris Double <cdouble@mozilla.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: >> How would you change the spec to say what you were intending to implement? >> There's no mechanism for suppressing the seeking events currently, for >> example. > > Yes, you raise good points. I think it might be better for me to > change to the way the HTML spec specifies it (I wasn't aware that had > changed to support media fragments - thanks for pointing it out). > >> Good point. As another issue, it would be ideal if it behaved exactly as if >> one had used a cue range with the pauseOnExit flag, so that this logic can >> be shared in implementations and so that it's possible to emulate MF using >> cue ranges in browsers that only implement the latter. > > Yes, that makes sense. > >> I'm quite skeptical of making the behavior stateful like this. If the user >> tries to seek to the beginning of the fragment but ends up right before it >> due to rounding errors, don't you think it would be annoying and confusing >> if the fragment stopped "working" from then on? IMO it would be better to >> always have the fragment present and always pause when reaching the end >> time. > > I'm happy to do it the way you suggest. I haven't been a huge user of > media fragments (using existing implementations like YouTube's URL > format) so I have no problem changing what I've done to fit ways > people want to use it. Do experiment with it to make yourself an opinion of what would be best UI wise - I am not convinced either way. :-) Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2011 11:49:04 UTC