Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Interoperable buffered.start(0) fudge room #267

Open
chcunningham opened this issue Feb 5, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

Interoperable buffered.start(0) fudge room #267

chcunningham opened this issue Feb 5, 2021 · 1 comment
Labels
TPAC-2022-discussion Marked for discussion at TPAC 2022 Media WG meeting Sep 16
Milestone

Comments

@chcunningham
Copy link

I accidentally created a demo (for a separate issue) that didn't work in Safari because the video buffer didn't start at zero. The demo does work in Chrome and Firefox.
https://oxidized-tide-seeder.glitch.me/start_time_bug.html

@jernoble wrote:

There's a couple of weird things about this test. In Firefox & Safari, the video track seems to start at 0.2s, and the audio exactly at 0.0s. Chrome, meanwhile, seems to think the video track starts at 0.766s. All browsers think the first appended video segment ends at 3.1s (or 3.0999s for Chrome). Looking at the file itself, it has a an edit list which looks like it intends to shift the first sample back one frame-duration so both tracks start at 0s, but also has a sidx box indicating the first frame is available at 0.2s.

Firefox and Chrome allow the user to play through a 0.2s or 0.766s gap at the start of a video; both have a readyState of HAVE_ENOUGH_DATA. Safari treats this as an unbuffered range and stalls waiting for data to be appended, and has a readyState of HAVE_METADATA. I would argue Safari's behavior here is correct, since we literally do not have data for the current time available for decoding.

The spec might clarify:

  • what to do when edit list and sidx conflict
  • whether some amount of mismatch between audio/video start should be allowed
@wolenetz wolenetz added this to the V2 milestone Apr 19, 2021
@wolenetz wolenetz added the TPAC-2022-discussion Marked for discussion at TPAC 2022 Media WG meeting Sep 16 label Sep 16, 2022
@wolenetz
Copy link
Member

See also #205

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
TPAC-2022-discussion Marked for discussion at TPAC 2022 Media WG meeting Sep 16
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants