- From: Joćo Eiras <joao.eiras@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:25:51 +0100
Does it make more sense to use a big integer like playcount="9999999999" ? How big can the integer be ? (read my previous email about the integer size). Many authors will want a video to loop, like a small ad or logo, and really don't want to care about any kind of loop count. Infitine looping would solve their use case in a simple semantic way. Yes, playcount="infinite" or whatever or more semantic than playcount="999999999" !! Why really don't understand what's the problem of having the keyword, or the special case for 0. When you really can't find a simple use case for a feature, someone else later on will, so basing your judgment on "if there is a use case" is not a good thing for trivial features such as these. On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote: > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:38:50 +0200, Jo?o Eiras <joao.eiras at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Why not just assuming that playcount="0" means loops forever ? > > Why not drop the feature completely? What are the use cases for keeping > looping attributes in the specification at all seems a much more important > question to answer than how to potentially address infinite looping without > resorting to scripting, no? :-) > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > <http://annevankesteren.nl/> > <http://www.opera.com/> >
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2008 09:25:51 UTC