[whatwg] More YouTube response

[Marques Johansson]

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
>
>