[whatwg] More YouTube response

If there were hooks for handling the bytes being requested and
supplied to the media object, would you agree that DRM modules could
be written with Javascript (if a bit of a straw man - as all DRM is
perceived to varying degrees)? I think this could prevent the need for
some plugins.

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Shane Fagan
<shanepatrickfagan at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 13:38 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:13:00 +0200, Shane Fagan
>> <shanepatrickfagan at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> > Well this isnt really a list where we should talk about the dos and
>> > donts of web content distribution. DRM content can be embedded in the
>> > video tag and decoded using installable plugins so its not really an
>> > issue for this list I dont think. We cant dictate how the specs are used
>> > so try to keep the conversation technology neutral.
>>
>> Whether playing video requires a plugin is very much an issue for this
>> list, I think. What Henri explained -- not having lock-in to a particular
>> platform because of proprietary plugins -- is a large part of the reason
>> why we have <video> in the first place.
>>
>>
>
> Well I got that from what Henri was saying. The reason why I said that
> was that we cant tell people how to use the spec. The video tag could be
> used for any kind of video be it a DRM video or non DRM .webm or .mp4
> video, its really vendor preference on what they use. Shipping the DRM
> codec as a plugin will be a lot smaller and a lot easier than shipping
> the entire flash platform so it would be better than the current
> situation.
>
> I have to clarify that im against DRM anyway because not only does it
> not protect the content well in most cases but also most of it doesnt
> work on Linux by default. All im saying is that if youtube has a problem
> with html5 and want content protection through DRM then thats their
> decision.
>
> --fagan
>
>

Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 05:27:42 UTC