12529 2011-04-20 08:27:53 +0000 <video> Fix HAVE_METADATA and HAVE_CURRENT_DATA when seeking and at playback end 2011-08-04 05:14:49 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified Other other RESOLVED FIXED http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-ready-states P3 normal --- 1 contributor ian eric.carlson ian mike philipj public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking silviapfeiffer1 public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 47568 0 contributor 2011-04-20 08:27:53 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-ready-states Comment: Fix HAVE_METADATA and HAVE_CURRENT_DATA when seeking and at playback end Posted from: 83.218.67.122 User agent: Opera/9.80 (X11; Linux x86_64; U; en) Presto/2.8.131 Version/11.10 47569 1 philipj 2011-04-20 08:33:58 +0000 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0441.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/0451.html Based on this discussion, some spec changes are in order. On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:45:16 +0100, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: > Suggestion: > > * buffered ranges are inclusive > * whenever currentTime is not in one of the ranges, readyState <= > HAVE_METADATA > * when currentTime is in one of the ranges, readyState >= > HAVE_CURRENT_DATA > * no special casing of EOS > > This would mean that readyState would never go back to HAVE_METADATA > during normal playback, only when first loading the resource and when > seeking to an unbuffered position. At least to me, this seems consistent > and logical. On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:46:50 +0100, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: > I'd much prefer if we kept the theoretical model and definitions simple > by not assuming that there's such a thing as an imaginary epsilon > differentiating two times that are indistinguishable both to the browser > internals and via the DOM API. The definition of "potentially playing" might need readjusting as well, as it was changed during that discussion. 51084 2 ian 2011-07-14 23:55:24 +0000 Wasn't this all fixed already? 51194 3 philipj 2011-07-18 08:55:18 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > Wasn't this all fixed already? Yes: http://html5.org/r/6177 http://html5.org/r/6178 http://html5.org/r/6179 http://html5.org/r/6180 53534 4 mike 2011-08-04 05:14:49 +0000 mass-move component to LC1