- From: Yay295 <yay295@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:26:38 -0600
- To: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me> wrote: > From: whatwg [mailto:whatwg-bounces@lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Robert > O'Callahan > > According to the spec it should work, but it's very low priority for us > and > > implementing it would be very inefficient as Yay295 describes. So I don't > > think it's going to happen in Firefox in the forseeable future. > > I was looking in to this yesterday and it seems like the spec places > absolute no limits on playbackRate. Am I right? This seems a bit bad. > > If nobody is supporting negative nor has any plans to, we should at least > consider throwing for negative. I guess we can leave the upper limit > unspecified, unless implementations all happen to agree on one. > > playbackRate should also probably be set to 0 when the video is paused, seeing as they accomplish the same task. Or better yet redefine pause() to be setting playbackRate to 0. You would of course then have to keep a note of what the playbackRate was before pause() was called, but it would fix the issue of playbackRate being set to zero, yet video.paused returning false. So video.pause() would save the current playbackRate and then set playbackRate to 0, and video.play() would restore the playbackRate saved by pause(). video.paused could then just return (playbackRate ? false : true).
Received on Friday, 28 August 2015 19:27:06 UTC