On Nov 6, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Simon Pieters wrote:
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:11:18 +0100, Brian Campbell brian.p.campb...@dartmouth.edu
wrote:
Brian, since Firefox is doing what you proposed -- can you think
of any other issues with its current implementation? What about
for audio files?
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:11:15 +0100, Andrew Scherkus scher...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Brian Campbell
brian.p.campb...@dartmouth.edu wrote:
On Nov 5, 2009, at 1:17 AM, Andrew Scherkus
On 11/7/09 3:21 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
When timeupdate was added, the stated goal was actually as a battery
saving feature for for example mobile devices. The idea was that the
implementation could scale back how often it fired the event in order
to save battery.
Now that we have
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Justin Dolske dol...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 11/7/09 3:21 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
When timeupdate was added, the stated goal was actually as a battery
saving feature for for example mobile devices. The idea was that the
implementation could scale back how often
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:11:15 +0100, Andrew Scherkus
scher...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Brian Campbell
brian.p.campb...@dartmouth.edu wrote:
On Nov 5, 2009, at 1:17 AM, Andrew Scherkus wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Brian Campbell
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.comwrote:
We've considered firing it for each frame, but there is one problem. If
people expect that it fires once per frame they will probably write scripts
which do frame-based animations by moving things n pixels per frame or
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Brian Campbell
brian.p.campb...@dartmouth.edu wrote:
On Nov 5, 2009, at 1:17 AM, Andrew Scherkus wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Brian Campbell
brian.p.campb...@dartmouth.edu wrote:
As a multimedia developer, I am wondering about the purpose of the
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Brian Campbell
brian.p.campb...@dartmouth.edu wrote:
As implemented by Safari and Chrome (which is the minimum rate allowed by
the spec), it's not really useful for that purpose, as 4 updates per second
makes any sort of synchronization feel jerky and laggy.
It
As a multimedia developer, I am wondering about the purpose of the
timeupdate event on media elements. On first glance, it would appear
that this event would be useful for synchronizing animations, bullets,
captions, UI, and the like. The spec specifies a rate of 4 to 66 Hz
for these
