- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:27:33 -0700
On Oct 29, 2008, at 18:34, "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> > wrote: >> Eduard Pascual wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Maciej (and I think others) have suggested that it would be >>>> useful if it >>>> was >>>> possible to allow <audio> to be used such that a single file can be >>>> downloaded that contains multiple sound effects, and then use >>>> javascript >>>> to >>>> play different sound effects contained in that file at various >>>> times. >>>> >>>> For example someone creating a shoot-em-up game might create a >>>> file that >>>> contains the sound for "shoot weapon", "enemy exploding", "player >>>> dying", >>>> and "player finishes level". It can then when appropriate use >>>> javascript >>>> to >>>> play any one of these sound effects. >>> >>> Wouldn't multiple <audio> elements be better here? They'd point to >>> the >>> actual same file, but different fragments. That would even make the >>> script less bloated (just selecting each element, instead of >>> explicitly getting the appropriate fragment from the "master" file >>> each time you need it). This brings the additional advantage that, >>> in >>> the event the server does support file fragments, only the actually >>> required fragments will be downloaded. >> >> The whole idea was to make a single HTTP request to the server. >> Doesn't seem >> like your proposal accomplishes that. >> >> As I said, I'm fine with not satisfying this use case (of allowing >> multiple >> sound effects downloaded in a single request). But that was the use >> case >> that was cited. > > No, that's not a use case - that's a proposed solution for the use > case of having multiple small audio files required for playback of one > larger audio presentation. If another solution can satisfy this need > with appropriate qos, then I don't think we need to worry further. That's exactly what proposal 3 was. / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2008 22:27:33 UTC