W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2007

[whatwg] Apple Proposal for Timed Media Elements

From: Vladimir Vukicevic <vladimir@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 19:31:31 -0700
Message-ID: <46145F83.1020402@pobox.com>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> CSS Timed Media Module proposal - http://webkit.org/specs/ 
> Timed_Media_CSS.html

Some feedback on my initial reading..  the CSS properties specified seem 
like a good set that will cover most common functionality.  Some 
comments about the spec, though:

1. 'media-loop-count' is an awkward name, especially with "The default 
value of 1 means the item will play through once but will not loop."  We 
went through this with APNG, and ended up renaming that member.  I would 
suggest 'media-play-count' instead -- that way there is no ambiguity 
with what the number means.

2. The descriptions for 'media-loop-start-time' and 
'media-loop-end-time' don't match; start-time says "sets the time at 
which the media item begins playing after looping", and end-time says 
"sets the time at which the media item loops for the second and 
subsequent repetitions".

I would suggest that start-time says "sets the time index at which the 
media item starts playing for the second and subsequent repetitions", 
and that end-time says "sets the time index at which the media item ends 
playing for the second and subsequent repetitions."  The language for 
end-time is still a little awkward, since "ends playing" could imply 
that it simply stops playing (and does not loop), but it's clearer than 
before.

3. 'media-timing' I would get rid of completely; while a shorthand would 
be useful, I don't think that media-timing as specified really works. 
Shorthands for properties such as 'background' are understandable on 
their own; 'media-timing: playing 0s -0.5s 2 2s -4s 1' is very opaque. 
    If it's still desirable, I would remove the setting of start/end 
times and change the volume shorthand to only accept the symbolic names; 
e.g. 'media-timing: playing high 4;'... but I think that removing the 
shorthand entirely would be preferable.


I've yet to read over the HTML part of the proposal, but I'll send along 
feedback when I've had a chance to do so.

     - Vlad
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 19:31:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:34 UTC