- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 08:19:29 +1100
Uhmmm, ooo ... yes - I didn't do the maths ... but you get the point. ;-) S. On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com> wrote: > Don't count on it: people leave tabs in browsers open and videos > playing and it might just play 9999999999999 times before anyone > touches the tab again. > Silvia. > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:03 AM, Kristof Zelechovski > <giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl> wrote: >> Play count 9999999999999 means just that number, it does not mean "forever" >> by itself. It is only functionally like "forever" because no one is likely >> to let it loop till the play count specified is reached. A 32-bit quantity >> is enough to get this effect. >> Chris >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org >> [mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Joao Eiras >> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 1:19 PM >> To: Henri Sivonen >> Cc: whatwg group >> Subject: Re: [whatwg] video tag : loop for ever >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2008 14:19:29 UTC