On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Robert O'Callahan
wrote:
> I'm not sure what this means:
>
>> Firefox fires the canplaythrough event after buffering is completed or
>> halted instead of a bandwidth depending solution
>>
> Do you mean that even when the data is arriving at a very high rate, we
>
On 11/3/14, 3:41 PM, "Silvia Pfeiffer" wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Brendan Long
>wrote:
>>
>> On 11/03/2014 04:20 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Brendan Long
>>>wrote:
>>> Right, that was the original concern. But how realistic is the
>>> situation
On 11/03/2014 05:41 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Brendan Long wrote:
>> On 11/03/2014 04:20 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Brendan Long wrote:
>>> Right, that was the original concern. But how realistic is the
>>> situation of n vi
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Brendan Long wrote:
>
> On 11/03/2014 04:20 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Brendan Long wrote:
>> Right, that was the original concern. But how realistic is the
>> situation of n video tracks and m caption tracks with n being larger
On 11/03/2014 04:20 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Brendan Long wrote:
> Right, that was the original concern. But how realistic is the
> situation of n video tracks and m caption tracks with n being larger
> than 2 or 3 without a change of the audio track anyway?
I
On 10/28/2014 12:06 PM, whatwg-requ...@lists.whatwg.org wrote:
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:33:02 + (UTC)
From: Ian Hickson
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Shared storage
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014, Brett Zamir wrote:
>
>The desktop PC thankfully evolved into allowing third-party software
>which could create an
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Brendan Long wrote:
>
> On 10/27/2014 08:43 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Philip Jägenstedt
wrote
Thanks for the testing! Please file bugs against browsers where you feel
they're not following the spec.
I'm not sure what this means:
> Firefox fires the canplaythrough event after buffering is completed or
> halted instead of a bandwidth depending solution
>
Do you mean that even when the data
Impressive research, Martin! Would you and your team be willing to turn it into
test cases for the web-platform-tests project [1]? That's usually a good way to
get browsers to fix their bugs. Failing that, you might want to file bugs on
the various browser bug trackers.
[1]: https://github.com/
On 10/27/2014 08:43 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:01 AM, Philip Jägenstedt
>>> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
A couple of us at Mozilla have been trying to figure out how to revive
activities/intents for the web. Both work relatively well in closed
environments such as Firefox OS and Android, but seem harder to deploy
in a generic way on the web.
What we've been looking at instead is solving a smaller use
Greetings,
I would like to bring some strange behavior of current web browsers to
your attention. We have checked the HTML video (mp4 containers)
abilities of IE, Safari, Chrome and Firefox and noted some variations
between the specification and implementations. Our attention was focused
on t
On Nov 3, 2014, at 15:32 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 4:19 PM, David Singer wrote:
>> The readability is much better (I am not a fan of the current trend of
>> writing specifications in pseudo-basic, which makes life easier for
>> implementers and terrible for anyone el
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 4:19 PM, David Singer wrote:
> The readability is much better (I am not a fan of the current trend of
> writing specifications in pseudo-basic, which makes life easier for
> implementers and terrible for anyone else, including authors), and I also
> think that an approach
On Nov 2, 2014, at 20:05 , Sam Ruby wrote:
> Third, here's a completely different approach to defining URLs that produces
> the same results (modulo one parse error that Anne agrees[2] should changed
> in be in the WHATWG spec):
>
> http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url.html#url
>
I r
15 matches
Mail list logo
