W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2008

[whatwg] video tag : loop for ever

From: Joćo Eiras <joao.eiras@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:25:51 +0100
Message-ID: <e72b1b360810150925u7e69772k1ead0bfa91f57b01@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:06 UTC