- From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 13:38:43 -0800
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-orca@w3.org" <public-orca@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJrXDUFOZRDAs6oQdVJ3L45ywMLZa8Yjq_Z4FOKj7vE2qmCo7w@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote: > On 18 February 2014 17:17, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote: > > As for priority, your "add bits proportionally" is exactly what I was > > thinking, but, as you pointed out, it's "roughly proportionally", since > you > > can quite split up bit allocation that finely. Whether a browser does > it in > > a simple fashion or with more fancy "curves" may simply be browser, > codec, > > and BWE dependent. The JS gives the policy, and the browser does its > best. > > I think that unless there is some amount of determinism here, we will > leave applications doing funny heuristic things, browser sniffing and > the like. I understand that it might be hard to specify something, > but I'd like something a little more deterministic than what you have > specified. > I agree we should be as predictable for the application as possible. But I don't really know how detailed we can or should specify the implementation. That's probably a good item for discussion. And, I should mention that I made this proposal as a starting ground for discussion. It's certainly not a complete specification as written. So, let me add it to our virtual TODO list: - Discuss how detailed we should specify the implementation such that applications get predictable/consistent behavior.
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2014 21:39:51 UTC