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 implementation experience, is timeupdate fulfilling
this goal? If not, is it fulfilling any other goals making it worth
keeping?
FWIW, I felt that having Firefox's default video controls update their
state for every frame was excessive (and could lead to competing for the
CPU with the video itself). So, the controls basically ignore timeupdate
events that occur within .333 seconds of the last timeupdate position...
Which leads to having a bit of complication to deal with edge cases like
having the video end less than .333 seconds after the last timeupdate
event (otherwise the UI might look like stuck shortly before the end of
the video).
At least for my needs, having an event fire at ~3 Hz (and when special
things happen, like a seek or the video ending) would be somewhat
simpler and more efficient.
Justin
