[whatwg] HTML 5 : The Youtube response
philipj at opera.com
Wed Jun 30 08:14:37 PDT 2010
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:31:20 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com>
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 2:35 AM, schalk <schalk at ossreleasefeed.com>
>> Hi there,
>> Has anyone/everyone read the blog entry on Youtube’s blog
>> (http://apiblog.youtube.com/2010/06/flash-and-html5-tag.html) regarding
>> feeling about HTML5 video and why they still feel that Flash for video
>> is the
>> preferred choice? I must say I do share some of their points. My
>> question is,
>> what work is being done to remedy these points at the moment?
> So, for a quick recap, their problems are:
> 1. Standard video format
> 2. Robust video streaming
> 3. Content Protection
> 4. Encapsulation + embedding
> 5. Fullscreen video
> 6. Camera and Microphone access
> The blog itself successfully covers the current responses to 1, 2, 5,
> and 6. #3 is a different story; it doesn't appear that anyone in this
> space is working on that or intends to. And I'm happy with that. #4
> is kind of silly - flash embedding doesn't protect anyone's private
> data - the plugin can do plenty of malicious stuff if it wants to.
> Spreading videos by embedding <script> tags would be equally safe. I
> think people just don't realize that fact. In any case, embedding
> videos via <iframe sandbox=allow-scripts> should work fine, once more
> browsers support it.
What issues would there be with simply using <iframe> without sandboxing?
What doesn't the cross-origin policy stop?
More information about the whatwg