W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2010

[whatwg] More YouTube response

From: Shane Fagan <shanepatrickfagan@ubuntu.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:17:52 +0100
Message-ID: <1278073072.11770.10.camel@shane-laptop>
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 05:17:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:24 UTC