- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:14:19 +0200
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:25:51 +0200, Jo?o Eiras <joao.eiras at gmail.com> wrote: > 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. That's not the question. The question is whether the looping attributes are needed at all. It seems that there's some desire for simple looping, e.g. background sounds. That does not require the five attributes the specification currently provides though. Rather, it requires one simple boolean attribute. > 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. Someone will always be able to come up with a use case for something. The question is whether the use case justifies the feature. And use cases have to be considered even for small features, as a lot of small features takes up a lot of additional engineering, testing, etc. time that could be used addressing more common use cases. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2008 14:14:19 UTC