On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:01:09 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
When preload=none, step 2 of
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/the-video-element.html#concept-media-load-resource
should not be optional.
The effective (internal) preload state should be defined.
It
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:32:16 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Simon Pieters wrote:
It's not more. But it still is. Even though images aren't required to
load at all, you still recently changed the way they load to be
compatible (http://html5.org/r/7128 ). We should
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012, Simon Pieters wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:32:16 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Simon Pieters wrote:
It's not more. But it still is. Even though images aren't required
to load at all, you still recently changed the way they load to
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:57:29 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 9 May 2012, Simon Pieters wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2012 18:59:29 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
This is true, but as long as a few big browsers implement e.g.
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Simon Pieters wrote:
It's not more. But it still is. Even though images aren't required to
load at all, you still recently changed the way they load to be
compatible (http://html5.org/r/7128 ). We should also specify how videos
load to be compatible. We can do it now
On Wed, 9 May 2012, Simon Pieters wrote:
On Tue, 08 May 2012 18:59:29 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
This is true, but as long as a few big browsers implement e.g.
preload=none in a somewhat compatible way, it's hard to imagine
On Tue, 08 May 2012 18:59:29 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
This is true, but as long as a few big browsers implement e.g.
preload=none in a somewhat compatible way, it's hard to imagine page
authors not coming to depend on that behavior
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
I'd very much like to see feedback from other implementors. Are you
happy with treating autoplay and preload as just hints as in [4] or do
you think that we should specify them in greater detail? (This does not
preclude having user preferences
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 04:50:17 +0200, Chris Pearce cpea...@mozilla.com
wrote:
I implemented preload support in Firefox.
On 18/08/2011 3:44 a.m., Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
I'd very much like to see feedback from other implementors. Are you
happy with treating autoplay and preload as just
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 05:36:42 +0200, Bjartur Thorlacius
svartma...@gmail.com wrote:
Þann mið 17.ágú 2011 15:44, skrifaði Philip Jägenstedt:
I'd very much like to see feedback from other implementors. Are you
happy with treating autoplay and preload as just hints as in [4] or do
you think that
On 19/08/2011 12:01 a.m., Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
I think that too much variation in how preload is implemented is also
likely to give compat problems. In
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12596#c7 I have an
example of what might break when pages inevitably assume that
Greetings,
Opera's implementation [1] of video preload and the testsuite [2][3] has
been available for about a month now. While implementing this, we found
and reported a number of issues. [4-10] In general, it is my opinion that
video preload is under-defined, giving implementors more
I implemented preload support in Firefox.
On 18/08/2011 3:44 a.m., Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
I'd very much like to see feedback from other implementors. Are you
happy with treating autoplay and preload as just hints as in [4] or
do you think that we should specify them in greater detail?
I
Þann mið 17.ágú 2011 15:44, skrifaði Philip Jägenstedt:
I'd very much like to see feedback from other implementors. Are you
happy with treating autoplay and preload as just hints as in [4] or do
you think that we should specify them in greater detail? (This does not
preclude having user
14 matches
Mail list logo
