On 3/20/07, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> >
> > I only included togglePause() because Flash supports it and some
> > people asked for it; I'm not convinced we should keep it.
>
> I'm in favour of dropping it. It's an unnecessary API for browsers to
> support. It adds nothing that can't be done with play()/pause() and an
> if statement.
>
> if (video.state == HTMLVideoElement.PAUSED) {
> video.play();
> } else {
> video.pause();
> }
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Jeff Cutsinger wrote:
>
> +1.
I've commented it out for now. Let's see how many people complain.
No objections. Also +1.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Shadow2531 wrote:
>
> So, if one used <video src="200x200.ogg" style="width: 800px; height:
> 800px;"></video> , there'd be no way to make the video display at 200 x
> 200 because it would always scale?
Currently, correct.
Thanks.
> If so, if one wanted to simulate the look I'm describing, would one have
> to do the following for example?
>
> <figure style="width: 800px; height: 800px; background: #000;">
> <video src="200x200.ogg" style="width: 200px; height: 200px;"></video>
> </figure>
>
> (Just want to be sure.)
Yeah, you could do that.
Thanks
> I'm thinking more along the lines of a local HTML page that embeds a
> local video (one of your favorites for example) where when you load the
> page (via a bookmark or a panel for example), it automatically starts
> and is set to loop (because you authored it that way).
Well for local content we don't need to worry about interoperability
(since the user makes it for himself on his user agent), so user agents
are free to add vendor extensions to do this, or the user could use JS, or
the user could do something that doesn't involve HTML at all, that's not
really our problem.
Point taken.
> So, this is all that is needed to do autostart?
>
> window.onload = function() {
> document.getElementsByTagName("video")[0].play();
> };
That will do it, yes, assuming the user agent doesn't block it (the spec
allows that, under use control).
Thanks
> > > However, if JS is needed for the video element to function at all,
> > > then the video element needs to fall back if JS is turned off.
> >
> > Interesting point.
>
> Yes, since JS is required, if JS is off, the browser should display the
> alternate content.
>
> > You can do this with JS, of course (and that's the preferred way; hide
> > the fallback when you have JS).
>
> Are you saying that with JS on, the fallback content will be displayed
> in addition to the video and you have to use JS to hide the fallback
> content like the following?
>
> window.onload = function() {
> var x = document.getElementsByTagName("video")[0];
> x.play();
> x.innerHTML = "";
> };
No, I meant something like:
<section id="video">
<p>You need JavaScript turned on to do video.</p>
</section>
<script>
// clear the fallback
var v = document.getElementById('video');
while (v.hasChildNodes) v.removeChild(v.firstChild);
// get the data to play
var src = 'video.ogg';
// create the UI
default xml namespace = "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";;
var ui = <div>
<p><video src={src}></video></p>
<p>
<input type="button" value="Play" onclick="vPlay()"/>
<input type="button" value="Pause" onclick="vPause()"/>
</p>
</div>;
var video = ui..video.domNode();
function vPlay() { video.play() }
function vPause() { video.pause() }
v.appendChild(ui.domNode());
// start playback
video.play();
</script>
Or, probably better:
<section id="no-js-warning">
<p>You need JavaScript turned on to do video.</p>
</section>
<section id="video">
<p><video src="video.ogg"></p>
<p>
<input type="button" value="Play" onclick="vPlay()"/>
<input type="button" value="Pause" onclick="vPause()"/>
</p>
</section>
<script>
// clear the fallback
var f = document.getElementById('no-js-warning');
f.parentNode.removeChild(f);
// UI functions
function vPlay() { video.play() }
function vPause() { video.pause() }
// start playback
video.play();
</script>
Thanks. I'm all set on this now.
--
burnout426
