- From: Joćo Eiras <joao.eiras@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:18:56 +0100
Using a high number like 9999999999999 is, IMO, stupid. You'd be forced to tell in the spec that playcount would have to be a 16, 32, 64, or X bit big integer, and if anything overflows the boundaries imposed by the internal integer representation, then playcount would have to be rounded to the highest possible boundary or assume infinite looping. Else, some browser will use a 64bit representation while its neighbour will use a 32bit integer (common sense might find 64bit too big and awkward) but then an authoring tool or author use playcount="9999999999" (10 digits) and somehow the browser with 32bit playcount integer breaks. Do you feel like overspecifiying this? Or do you prefer to have just either an integer, or a keyword in playcount=""? You've been doing the later in CSS for years, and so far browser implementors and spec writers have not complained. Just my 2 cents. On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen at iki.fi> wrote: > On Oct 15, 2008, at 03:40, Ian Hickson wrote: > >> There is no way to say "loop forever" right now primarily because doing so >> would mean complicating the syntax of the playcount attribute to be not >> just a number. You can work around it with script (just add >> onended="currentTime=0" to the <video> element). >> >> To be honest I'm not really convinced we need the looping feature at all. >> It seems like we should drop this from the current version. What benefit >> does it bring? Is looping really that common? If we got rid of it we could >> find better ways of picking the start time. > > > One benefit of getting authors to use a declarative attribute instead of a > script is that a declarative attribute is easier to greasemonkey away if the > user seriously doesn't like looping. > > -- > Henri Sivonen > hsivonen at iki.fi > http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ > > >
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2008 04:18:56 UTC