- From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:06:30 -0500
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Philip J?genstedt <philipj at opera.com> wrote: > I agree that there must exist a buffering strategy between strategy=metadata > and strategy=auto, but it's not clear that this must be exposed as a preload > state. The only difference between preload=metadata and preload=state3 would > be that preload=state3 would expect the user to start playing soon and start > buffering in anticipation of that. Firefox has supported preload=metadata > (and earlier, lack of autobuffer attribute) for a long time. Is it a problem > in Firefox that playback is slow to start because too little was buffered > before suspending? I do think that in the basic case of a user pressing play on a video player, it's good to be able to make that respond instantly rather than waiting for a round-trip to begin playing. Another use case is the background of a game, where you want the video ready to start when gameplay begins. > Much work is needed to improve the buffering behavior of <video>, but mostly > it's an implementation issue at this point. I'm quite open to extensions to > the API, but we must be careful to not make assumptions about buffering > strategies. Specifically, an exact downloadTargetBuffer doesn't work very > well when buffering is done in larger chunks using HTTP byte range requests > rather than some kind of TCP rate control. This is why my approach doesn't give direct control over the buffer size. You can request that it be limited (preload=buffer) or unlimited (preload=auto), but the exact buffer size is always up to the browser. The actual size should be abstract and not exposed to scripts; in practice it's probably not even a single number but a high- and low-watermark. -- Glenn Maynard
Received on Saturday, 22 January 2011 15:06:30 UTC