- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:53:26 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Philip J?genstedt wrote: > > It is not clear if the user agent should automatically invoke the load > method on media elements which are in the document's static markup. > ?????Is it supposed to be implied by "media element ... inserted into a > document"? Yes. The parser can be thought of as just another script manipulating the DOM; when it inserts the <video> element, start downloading video. (And if that didn't work, then try again when the first <source> is inserted, and then the second one, and so forth). (It's fine to batch inserts too.) > If user agents don't want to waste time downloading video that isn't > visible (e.g. due to CSS "display:none") they can block the download > (step 14 of the load algorithm) until it becomes visible. In this > situation, does the spec allow firing the stalled event immediately > instead of waiting 3 seconds? Sure. The 3 seconds is just an "about". 0 seconds is "about" 3 secods. :-) Would you like the spec to be more explicit about this? > Since "faking it" is allowed, script authors should be aware that > loading media (at least video) in the background isn't going to work. > I'm not sure if this might be a problem, but if it is I expect we could > cater to that need by making an explicit load() to cause the user agent > to rush to CAN_PLAY as fast as possible without fake-stalling. > > Any ideas on this? This might be nit-picking, but consistency across > browsers would be nice if possible. The script can tell if the download is being blocked by checking bufferingThrottled and bufferingRate. I'm not sure we want a way to override the blocking since it is supposed to represent user intent. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 08:53:26 UTC