[whatwg] Small inconsistencies in video events
ian at hixie.ch
Mon Feb 23 00:56:16 PST 2009
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> I was just writing some tests for various events and noticed that
> there's a slight weirdness in the events fired for readyState
> transitions. If readyState changes from HAVE_CURRENT_DATA to
> HAVE_FUTURE_DATA, the element is then potentially playing, and then
> readyState changes to HAVE_ENOUGH_DATA, we fire "canplay", "playing",
> "canplay" again, "canplaythrough" and "playing" again. OTOH if
> readyState changes from HAVE_CURRENT_DATA directly to HAVE_ENOUGH_DATA
> and the element is potentially playing, then we fire "canplay",
> "canplaythrough", and "playing".
> I think we should fire the same set of events in the same order whether
> we transition through HAVE_FUTURE_DATA or not. So, I suggest that a
> transition from HAVE_FUTURE_DATA to HAVE_ENOUGH_DATA should not fire
> "canplay" or "playing". Also, a transition from HAVE_CURRENT_DATA to
> HAVE_ENOUGH_DATA should fire "canplaythrough" after we've handled
> autoplay and potentially fired "playing".
I've tried to make this much more consistent. You were definitely right
that there were far too many duplicate and out-of-order events before.
Please let me know if the new spec is still doing silly things.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg