There were 81 e-mails on the topic of looping audio and video.
I haven't included them here because they were mostly redundant. However,
I read them all, and it seems that the use cases and feedback boiled down
to these points:
1. Feedback: Simplify the API where possible; in particular
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I have missed a key point, please do let me know. It's quite
possible that I missed something when reading this thread as it was
quite long and had a lot of repetition.
Sounds good to me.
/ Jonas
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
I believe your use case of creating an adio editor through using the
audio tag is a bit far fetched. I don't think it lends itself to
that kind of functionality.
Your belief is fine with me - you haven't seen the prototype running on
Safari ;-)
You would not use the
] On Behalf Of Dr. Markus Walther
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 12:14 PM
To: Jonas Sicking
Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer; whatwg group; Eduard Pascual; Eric Carlson; Maciej
Stachowiak; Chris Double
Subject: Re: [whatwg] video tag : loop for ever
Any proposed solution that ignores the use case where 'start
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After thinking about this, I'm not sure that limiting playback to a
section of a media file will be used very often. A developer can easily
script the same functionality as long as they don't use the
Am Mittwoch, den 29.10.2008, 11:16 -0700 schrieb Jonas Sicking:
Maciej (and I think others) have suggested that it would be useful if it
was possible to allow audio to be used such that a single file can be
downloaded that contains multiple sound effects, and then use javascript
to play
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maciej (and I think others) have suggested that it would be useful if it was
possible to allow audio to be used such that a single file can be
downloaded that contains multiple sound effects, and then use javascript to
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Kristof Zelechovski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Multiple AUDIO elements require one request per element unless they refer
to
the same stream or they use the data URL scheme, or the whole page is
packaged as multipart/mixed, which would indeed be nice for such
Of Robert O'Callahan
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 8:36 PM
To: Kristof Zelechovski
Cc: whatwg; Nils Dagsson Moskopp
Subject: Re: [whatwg] video tag : loop for ever
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Kristof Zelechovski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Multiple AUDIO elements require one request per
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:38 AM, Eduard Pascual [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't multiple audio elements be better here?
I can see use cases where multiple audio elements might not be as
useful as one containing multiple samples.
I might have a single audio file containing 500 'parts of
Am Donnerstag, den 30.10.2008, 13:19 +1300 schrieb Chris Double:
I'm not sure that type of use case is very likely though. In my
JavaScript 8080 emulator
Wait, what ?
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure that type of use case is very likely though. In my
JavaScript 8080 emulator
Wait, what ?
http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/js8080
Needs a fast modern browser with recent canvas support. Webkit and
Firefox
Eduard Pascual wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maciej (and I think others) have suggested that it would be useful if it was
possible to allow audio to be used such that a single file can be
downloaded that contains multiple sound effects, and then
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eduard Pascual wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maciej (and I think others) have suggested that it would be useful if it
was
possible to allow audio to be used such that a
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:52 AM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The whole idea was to make a single HTTP request to the server. Doesn't seem
like your proposal accomplishes that.
Indeed, it doesn't. It doesn't seem that the recent messages mentioned
that need neither.
Anyway, for the
On Oct 29, 2008, at 18:34, Silvia Pfeiffer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Eduard Pascual wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Maciej (and I think others) have suggested that it
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After thinking about this, I'm not sure that limiting playback to a
section of a media file will be used very often. A developer can easily
script the same functionality as long as they don't use the default
controller,
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
(Probably the best way to do something like this (short of a realtime
sound API) would be the ability to queue up an audio file (or range
thereof) to play next when the current one finishes, because then the
media framework can take care of ensuring a smooth
After thinking about this, I'm not sure that limiting playback to a
section of a media file will be used very often. A developer can easily
script the same functionality as long as they don't use the default
controller, so it seems to me that attributes for this aren't warranted.
I think they
Sounds like what you really want is an audio/video stiching api so
that you could concatenate a second sound track and achieve a smooth
transition.
On 10/23/08, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 14, 2008, at 5:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
There is no way to say loop forever
On Oct 24, 2008, at 6:44 AM, timeless wrote:
Sounds like what you really want is an audio/video stiching api so
that you could concatenate a second sound track and achieve a smooth
transition.
That might be useful in its own right but seems irrelevant to the use
case of looping a single
On Oct 14, 2008, at 5:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
There is no way to say loop forever right now primarily because
doing so
would mean complicating the syntax of the playcount attribute to be
not
just a number. You can work around it with script (just add
onended=currentTime=0 to the video
On Oct 15, 2008, at 8:03 PM, Eric Carlson wrote:
On Oct 15, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Chris Double wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not the question. The question is whether the looping
attributes are
needed at all. It seems that there's
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:48 AM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 15, 2008, at 8:03 PM, Eric Carlson wrote:
On Oct 15, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Chris Double wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That's not the question. The question
...not sure if the following has been noted; if so, apologies...
Currently, animated GIF and MNG images are used, sometimes, in loop forever
form. Assuming that video might be used in an
analogous fashion, loop-forever should be supported.
I shudder to think about looping audio, however.
I shudder to think about looping audio, however. Animated GIFs are often
called dancing baloney ... and looping audio would be...?
One can program a game with svg or canvas with background music and
sound effects, which is something proprietary plugins already allow.
Am Mittwoch, den 15.10.2008, 20:03 -0700 schrieb Eric Carlson:
After thinking about this, I'm not sure that limiting playback to a
section of a media file will be used very often.
Transcript anyone ? If you want to embed a lecture, for example, it
makes sense to be able to link to specific
On Oct 15, 2008, at 8:31 PM, Chris Double wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Eric Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However I also think
that playing just a segment of a media file will be a common use-
case, so I
don't think we need start and end either.
How would you emulate end
On Oct 16, 2008, at 7:32 AM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 15.10.2008, 20:03 -0700 schrieb Eric Carlson:
After thinking about this, I'm not sure that limiting playback to a
section of a media file will be used very often.
Transcript anyone ? If you want to embed a lecture,
hey people, you like to make everything as complex as posible don't you?
playcount=1 only one time
playcount=0 loop forever
or
playcount=-1 loop forever
whats the problem? is it really so hard to program that?
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:17:49 +0200, SA Alfonso Baqueiro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hey people, you like to make everything as complex as posible don't you?
Yes.
playcount=1 only one time
playcount=0 loop forever
or
playcount=-1 loop forever
whats the problem? is it really so hard to
On Oct 16, 2008, at 8:17 AM, SA Alfonso Baqueiro wrote:
playcount=1 only one time
playcount=0 loop forever
or
playcount=-1 loop forever
Or how about loop = loop forever, else play one time though?
eric
Eric Carlson wrote:
On Oct 15, 2008, at 8:31 PM, Chris Double wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Eric Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
However I also think
that playing just a segment of a media file will be a common
use-case, so I
don't think we need start and end either.
How
, 2008 6:25 PM
To: Eric Carlson
Cc: whatwg group; Chris Double
Subject: Re: [whatwg] video tag : loop for ever
Eric Carlson wrote:
On Oct 15, 2008, at 8:31 PM, Chris Double wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Eric Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
However I also think
that playing just
On Oct 16, 2008, at 9:24 AM, Dr. Markus Walther wrote:
Eric Carlson wrote:
I agree that it is more work to implement a custom controller, but
it
seems a reasonable requirement given that this is likely to be a
relatively infrequent usage pattern.
How do you know this will be infrequent?
Michael A. Puls II wrote:
On 10/14/08, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be honest I'm not really convinced we need the looping feature at all.
It seems like we should drop this from the current version. What benefit
does it bring? Is looping really that common? If we got rid of it we
Eric Carlson wrote:
As we discussed on IRC today, I think a valid use case for looping is
background audio. It is possible to implement looping from script, but
as someone else in this thread commented, it will be very difficult to
do cleanly (eg. without artifacts).
If this was done as
Chris Double wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Eric Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However I also think
that playing just a segment of a media file will be a common use-case, so I
don't think we need start and end either.
How would you emulate end via JavaScript in a reasonably
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 5:24 AM, Dr. Markus Walther [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Imagine e.g. an audio editor in a browser and the task play this
selection of the oscillogram...
Why should such use cases be left to the Flash 10 crowd
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lachlan Hunt
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 10:32 PM
To: Eric Carlson
Cc: whatwg
Subject: Re: [whatwg] video tag : loop for ever
I think it's worth nothing that, according to Mozilla's documentation,
the bgsound element uses a loop
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 15.10.2008, 20:03 -0700 schrieb Eric Carlson:
After thinking about this, I'm not sure that limiting playback to a
section of a media file will be used very often.
Transcript anyone ? If you want
On 10/16/08, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael A. Puls II wrote:
On 10/14/08, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be honest I'm not really convinced we need the looping feature at all.
It seems like we should drop this from the current version. What benefit
does it bring? Is
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Eduard Pascual [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I quite agree with this idea. For a number, I think -1 would be ideal:
it is already used by lots of desktop software to convey similar
meanings, and could have an interesting benefit implementation-wise:
if the 2's
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:06:20 +0200, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 15, 2008, at 03:40, Ian Hickson wrote:
To be honest I'm not really convinced we need the looping feature at
all.
I agree. I never really understood what the use cases were for these
attributes. I got the
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:38:50 +0200, João Eiras [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Why not just assuming that playcount=0 means loops forever ?
Why not drop the feature completely? What are the use cases for keeping
looping attributes in the specification at all seems a much more important
question
Is there any possible usefulness whatsoever in making playcount=0 not play
the video at all?
That's what autoplay is for.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Andy Lyttle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 15, 2008, at 8:38 AM, João Eiras wrote:
Why not just assuming that playcount=0 means loops
On 10/14/08, Silvia Pfeiffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YouTube has a loop parameter (loop=1), which you need to add to the
URL of the video file in your embed code. It is a boolean, which puts
the number of loops into the control of the user rather than the web
page author.
Cool. I might user
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joao Eiras
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 1:19 PM
To: Henri Sivonen
Cc: whatwg group
Subject: Re: [whatwg] video tag : loop for ever
Using a high number like 9 is, IMO, stupid.
You'd be forced to tell in the spec that playcount
Am Mittwoch, den 15.10.2008, 00:40 + schrieb Ian Hickson:
There is no way to say loop forever right now primarily because doing so
would mean complicating the syntax of the playcount attribute to be not
just a number. You can work around it with script (just add
onended=currentTime=0 to
On Oct 15, 2008, at 03:40, Ian Hickson wrote:
There is no way to say loop forever right now primarily because
doing so
would mean complicating the syntax of the playcount attribute to be
not
just a number. You can work around it with script (just add
onended=currentTime=0 to the video
On 10/15/08, Andy Lyttle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 15, 2008, at 8:38 AM, João Eiras wrote:
Why not just assuming that playcount=0 means loops forever ?
This was exactly my thought.
If playcount=5 causes the video to be played 5 times, what should
the result of each of these be?
On 15.10.2008, at 15:07, Eric Carlson wrote:
It sounds like we agree that looping *can* definitely be
implemented in JavaScript, but that it can be very difficult to do
so without visible/audible artifacts.
Would it be sufficient to have boolean attribute for enabling and
disabling
On Oct 15, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Chris Double wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not the question. The question is whether the looping
attributes are
needed at all. It seems that there's some desire for simple
looping, e.g.
background
On Oct 15, 2008, at 4:13 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
I like the simple boolean loop attribute.
I am not sure we need loopStart and loopEnd, since we have start and
end to reduce the looping to a segment. I would like to avoid going
down the SMIL path and creating markup that defines
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Eric Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However I also think
that playing just a segment of a media file will be a common use-case, so I
don't think we need start and end either.
How would you emulate end via JavaScript in a reasonably accurate
manner? If I have
How can I make a video loop for ever?
Will playcount = infinity works?
TIA
Biju
I understand the conceptual problem with this, but why don't you just
use a large number? If the video is 1 sec, with a playcount set to
999 it will keep running at least three months; longer than any
webpage is in memory.
jorgen
On Sep 27, 2008, at 5:19 PM, Biju [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Jorgen Horstink
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but why don't you just use a large number?
If the video is 1 sec, with a playcount set to 999 it will
I know that is a work around for web developer...
But here is a the problem.
Many software Video players have a
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:27:54 +1000, Jorgen Horstink
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand the conceptual problem with this, but why don't you just
use a large number? If the video is 1 sec, with a playcount set to
999 it will keep running at least three months; longer than any
59 matches
Mail list logo
