[whatwg] video tag : loop for ever

Silvia Pfeiffer silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 15 14:19:29 PDT 2008

Uhmmm, ooo ... yes - I didn't do the maths ... but you get the point. ;-)

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Don't count on it: people leave tabs in browsers open and videos
> playing and it might just play 9999999999999 times before anyone
> touches the tab again.
> Silvia.
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:03 AM, Kristof Zelechovski
> <giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl> wrote:
>> Play count 9999999999999 means just that number, it does not mean "forever"
>> by itself.  It is only functionally like "forever" because no one is likely
>> to let it loop till the play count specified is reached.  A 32-bit quantity
>> is enough to get this effect.
>> Chris
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org
>> [mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] 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 9999999999999 is, IMO, stupid.
>> You'd be forced to tell in the spec that playcount would have to be a
>> 16, 32, 64, or X bit big integer, and if anything overflows the
>> boundaries imposed by the internal integer representation, then
>> playcount would have to be rounded to the highest possible boundary or
>> assume infinite looping.
>> Else, some browser will use a 64bit representation while its neighbour
>> will use a 32bit integer (common sense might find 64bit too big and
>> awkward) but then an authoring tool or author use
>> playcount="9999999999" (10 digits) and somehow the browser with 32bit
>> playcount integer breaks.

More information about the whatwg mailing list