[whatwg] <video preload> implementation feedback
ian at hixie.ch
Wed Jun 13 15:57:29 PDT 2012
On Wed, 9 May 2012, Simon Pieters wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2012 18:59:29 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian at 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 so that it
> > > becomes required for web compat. It would be interesting to know if
> > > there are counter-examples, any script-visible behavior that is
> > > allowed to vary greatly between implementations without causing
> > > scripts to break.
> > Images aren't required to load at all. Scripts aren't required to run
> > at all. The window size is allowed to be any dimension at all. CSS
> > isn't required to be supported at all. Users are allowed to apply
> > arbitrary user style sheets. Users are allowed to interact with form
> > controls by using the keyboard or the mouse or any other input device.
> > All of these do break some pages.
> That CSS is optional and that users are allowed to apply user style
> sheets didn't stop you from specifying the Rendering section in great
Optional detail. UAs aren't required to follow that section.
> Making <video> behavior underdefined just because users should be able
> to disable video loading in preferences just means that in a few years
> the behavior of the market leader needs to be reverse engineered and
> implemented by everyone else.
I do not understand how this particular feature could end up in that
state any more than the other features I list above.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg