[Webkit-unassigned] [Bug 239961] <video> poster attribute allows another video

[bugzilla-daemon at webkit.org]

https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=239961

--- Comment #3 from Eric Carlson <eric.carlson at apple.com> ---
(In reply to Sam Sneddon [:gsnedders] from comment #2)
> There's two things here, I think:
> 
> 1. Should a video be allowed a poster as a poster? (Which Dean mentioned on
> https://github.com/WebKit/explainers/issues/79!)
> 

Safari, Firefox, and Chrome all allow animated .gif files as a <video> poster. From the user's perspective, what's the difference?

Only Safari allows a video file as a poster, but only WebKit allows a video file to be used as the source for an <img> element.


> 2. The poster video not obeying the site auto-play preference.
> 

Should an animated <img> also respect the user's auto-play preference?


> IMO, the latter is the more significant (and serious) issue, not least
> because it has the potential to actually cost the user real money.

A video file is generally smaller and more efficient to decompress, and therefore less expensive to download and display, than the same image sequence saved as an animated image.

I'm not necessarily saying that an animated poster makes sense, just that we shouldn't differentiate between using a video file and an animated image.

Should this be a spec issue?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-unassigned/attachments/20220504/013b79b4/attachment.htm>