HTML5 Finally Released as W3C Recommendation

[qwertywarrior]

http://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/HTML5-Finally-Released-W3C-Recommendation

 

Recently, the W3C has officially recommended the whole HTML5 standard as a specification for browser vendors and other interested parties. It is final. It is complete. Future work will now be rolled into HTML 5.1, which is currently on "Last Call" and set for W3C Recommendation in 2016. HTML 5.2 will follow that standard with a first specification working draft in 2015.

Image Credit: Darth Vader

 

[Valentyn]

About bloody time! Now Flash needs to go away even more online.

[qwertywarrior]

About bloody time! Now Flash needs to go away even more online.

then who will protect Keystone City ?

[Valentyn]

then who will protect Keystone City ?

I suggest Aquaman

[cesrai]

I think it will destroy flash and make adobe cry.

[Valentyn]

I think it will destroy flash and make adobe cry.

 

We can only hope. It's so much more efficient than Flash.

[jaggysnake57]

I think it will destroy flash and make adobe cry.

adobe thmselves have started to finish off flash they stopped supporting it in android

[cesrai]

adobe thmselves have started to finish off flash they stopped supporting it in android

When was it available ??

[martinrox1568]

When was it available ??

It was last available either on android 2.3 or 4.0

[cesrai]

It was last available either on android 2.3 or 4.0

Look like I missed it, #Nexus5masterrace

[martinrox1568]

Look like I missed it, #Nexus5masterrace

lol its all about that #nexus5lollipoppreviewmasterrace

[Redheadsrule13]

Wow, only now? That took it's time. Cool though. Might get more support from educational institutions to teach it now that's it's recommended and complete.

[Opcode]

HTML5 conquered Silverlight, now it's time for it to do away with Flash. It's about time that browsers work out of the box with all web content without the need for third party plugins.

[LAwLz]

So did the cancerous DRM get included as an official HTML5 spec? Last I checked there was still some talk about it not becoming a standard.

[Opcode]

So did the cancerous DRM get included as an official HTML5 spec? Last I checked there was still some talk about it not becoming a standard.

Too many think wrongly towards DRM, tho most don't even know that DRM has been part of a lot of software for over a century now. Windows itself even has built in DRM. Tho most look at it like it's a piece of software designed to destroy content. I can agree there are bad practices of implementing DRM into content. Personally the implementation of it into the HTML5 standard I don't foresee being a problem. It's not snooping or partaking in anything malicious, all it basically does is open up vendors to utilize encryption standards to protect their content. Take Netflix for an example, this is a case where DRM is used properly. It's there to help resolve a legitimate problem. As a software developer, I would hate to see something I spent weeks on writing to be leaked to the public as warez. I've written my own class for locking my software to a specific machine using hardware serials, this is also a type of DRM. Lots of people get it confused and the confusion needs to stop. Now I am not saying to accept all DRM, as I have stated before that there are some extremely bad implementations of it. Tho not all DRM is bad.

[LAwLz]

Too many think wrongly towards DRM, tho most don't even know that DRM has been part of a lot of software for over a century now. Windows itself even has built in DRM. Tho most look at it like it's a piece of software designed to destroy content. I can agree there are bad practices of implementing DRM into content. Personally the implementation of it into the HTML5 standard I don't foresee being a problem. It's not snooping or partaking in anything malicious, all it basically does is open up vendors to utilize encryption standards to protect their content. Take Netflix for an example, this is a case where DRM is used properly. It's there to help resolve a legitimate problem. As a software developer, I would hate to see something I spent weeks on writing to be leaked to the public as warez. I've written my own class for locking my software to a specific machine using hardware serials, this is also a type of DRM. Lots of people get it confused and the confusion needs to stop. Now I am not saying to accept all DRM, as I have stated before that there are some extremely bad implementations of it. Tho not all DRM is bad.

I hate pretty much all DRM, because it's useless and only ruins the user experience. Yes I include the DRM in both NetFlix and Windows in that.

Sure it's not designed to destroy content, but it's designed to limit what the customers can do with the things they purchased.

I think the DRM in HTML5 will be a huge issue, and it might be a big blow to what makes the Internet great (being able to share things). Google was one of the biggest supporters of the DRM so it's not too unreasonable to assume they might implement it into YouTube. Now all of a sudden nobody will be able to make remixes or do video responses which contains footage from other videos. If photo sharing websites enables it you will all of a sudden not be able to save a photo from that website anymore.

 

I don't even think NetFlix are using it for good reasons. The DRM stops literally 0 pirates from using pirating the movies on NetFlix. All it does is hinder their actual consumers like me from downloading the episode and watch it on my phone while on the bus (drives through areas with terrible reception).

Your example of locking stuff to the hardware serial is terrible as well. So if I upgraded something I would have to jump through a bunch of hoops or rebuy the software? That's awful. It won't stop pirates either since they will just find a way around that, and therefore actually beat you at user experience as well. People can either buy the program, which means paying for it as well as having a bunch of restrictions which might bite them in the ass later. Or they can pirate it for free, and avoid all the restrictions.

Don't you see that by implementing DRM you are crippling your own software, and giving people more reasons to pirate? Hell, I sometimes pirate a bunch of things I am already paying for (like movies I can get from NetFlix) because they don't have stupid restrictions (like requiring an Internet connection).

 

And on top of that we got all the security issues such as DRM in some cases actually being rootkits.

 

The only confusion I see about DRM is that it's made for a good cause (stopping piracy), but the reality is that it doesn't (just visit TPB and see how many games/movies it has failed to stop).

 

 

Quote from the EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry:

DRM does not prevent piracy. At this point, DRM seems intended to accomplish a very different purpose: giving some industry leaders unprecedented power to influence the pace and nature of innovation and upsetting the traditional balance between the interests of copyright owners and the interests of the public. The best way to fix the problem is to get rid of DRM on consumer products and reform the DMCA, but the steps we're suggesting will help protect technology users and future technology innovation in the meantime.

[Opcode]

I hate pretty much all DRM, because it's useless and only ruins the user experience. Yes I include the DRM in both NetFlix and Windows in that.

Sure it's not designed to destroy content, but it's designed to limit what the customers can do with the things they purchased.

I think the DRM in HTML5 will be a huge issue, and it might be a big blow to what makes the Internet great (being able to share things). Google was one of the biggest supporters of the DRM so it's not too unreasonable to assume they might implement it into YouTube. Now all of a sudden nobody will be able to make remixes or do video responses which contains footage from other videos. If photo sharing websites enables it you will all of a sudden not be able to save a photo from that website anymore.

 

I don't even think NetFlix are using it for good reasons. The DRM stops literally 0 pirates from using pirating the movies on NetFlix. All it does is hinder their actual consumers like me from downloading the episode and watch it on my phone while on the bus (drives through areas with terrible reception).

Your example of locking stuff to the hardware serial is terrible as well. So if I upgraded something I would have to jump through a bunch of hoops or rebuy the software? That's awful. It won't stop pirates either since they will just find a way around that, and therefore actually beat you at user experience as well. People can either buy the program, which means paying for it as well as having a bunch of restrictions which might bite them in the ass later. Or they can pirate it for free, and avoid all the restrictions.

Don't you see that by implementing DRM you are crippling your own software, and giving people more reasons to pirate? Hell, I sometimes pirate a bunch of things I am already paying for (like movies I can get from NetFlix) because they don't have stupid restrictions (like requiring an Internet connection).

 

And on top of that we got all the security issues such as DRM in some cases actually being rootkits.

 

The only confusion I see about DRM is that it's made for a good cause (stopping piracy), but the reality is that it doesn't (just visit TPB and see how many games/movies it has failed to stop).

 

 

Quote from the EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry:

Well when you're paying for a Netflix subscription you aren't buying content to begin with only the ability to access to it via streaming. Netflix has to fight off the consumer from having access to their digital content (that you didn't pay for). DRM has been working great for this as currently there is no way around it at the moment (from what I know) whch keeps the files that belong to Netflix secure. I personally don't think Google will take DRM that far as to where you can no longer incorporate media in the form of video responses, tho I do expect them to offer some sort of premium DRM option to users to protect their content from copyleft (opt-in).

 

Like said, you're not suppose to be able to download episodes from Netflix. Downloading an episode and watching it on your phone is exactly what it is, illegal. Also my example of hardware locking for premium game hacks that I have written, my customers can contact me any time to get another copy if need be (as long as other hardware serials match up). It allows me to sell more copies rather than one person buying it and sharing it on a website. It doesn't restrict them from use either as the software is not limited to anything other than being locked to the computer that they intend to run it on. As you can see, very viable examples of DRM that serve a legitimate purpose. No ones been able to break my protection, and I doubt anyone will be able to. This keeps the cash rolling into my pocket where it belongs.

 

As I have said my previous response, not all DRM is great. Early adoptions have given DRM a bad name, and that's simply because of the methods they used (e.g. rootkits etc).

 

DRM won't stop digital piracy all together, personally I don't see that ever happening.

 

Personally my look at it is almost all Anti-Cheat software run as a rootkit on the end users machine (access to ring 0 even) and yet no one complains about that. DRM doesn't even dig down that deep and people seem to have a problem with it. Sure if you buy a downloadable movie and end up forced to play it through some crappy DRM protected custom player, then I can understand the problem. Tho so far most DRM implementations (good or bad) serve a legitimate purpose in what they are intended to do.

[Heisenbleurgh]

Awesome!

[LAwLz]

Well when you're paying for a Netflix subscription you aren't buying content to begin with only the ability to access to it via streaming. Netflix has to fight off the consumer from having access to their digital content (that you didn't pay for). DRM has been working great for this as currently there is no way around it at the moment (from what I know) whch keeps the files that belong to Netflix secure. I personally don't think Google will take DRM that far as to where you can no longer incorporate media in the form of video responses, tho I do expect them to offer some sort of premium DRM option to users to protect their content from copyleft (opt-in).

House of Cards was available to download like the day after it was launched on NetFlix. Their DRM did absolutely nothing to stop people from pirating it. It was like holding up a wet paper bag to stop a train.

Again, DRM will never stop piracy (unless you do like Blizzard and move some of the game's code to run on an external server, which failed miserably and pretty much made the game unplayable for their real customers). Anyone who thinks that clearly hasn't done their research. Piracy is almost always a distribution problem, and DRM is pretty much always at the core of that distribution problem. By using DRM you are actually contributing to people pirating because they get more reasons to do so.

 

 

Like said, you're not suppose to be able to download episodes from Netflix. Downloading an episode and watching it on your phone is exactly what it is, illegal. Also my example of hardware locking for premium game hacks that I have written, my customers can contact me any time to get another copy if need be (as long as other hardware serials match up). It allows me to sell more copies rather than one person buying it and sharing it on a website. It doesn't restrict them from use either as the software is not limited to anything other than being locked to the computer that they intend to run it on. As you can see, very viable examples of DRM that serve a legitimate purpose. No ones been able to break my protection, and I doubt anyone will be able to. This keeps the cash rolling into my pocket where it belongs.

So if I use your program and change computers, I will have to rebuy it? You do realize that the "just contact me personally and it will work out" is unscalable. DRM doesn't stop your program from being pirated. If it does then it's because it's not even worth the time it would take for people to crack it (and yes someone would be able to crack it, don't fool yourself into thinking your solution is perfect while everyone else has failed).

It is from the bottom of my heart I say that I think you have no idea what you're doing and I hope you never get the chance to implement such a horrible system into any widely used software. It is extremely anti-consumer to lock it to a specific set of hardware. If they buy your program I think they should be allowed to use it, even if they change their computer.

 

 

As I have said my previous response, not all DRM is great. Early adoptions have given DRM a bad name, and that's simply because of the methods they used (e.g. rootkits etc).

 

DRM won't stop digital piracy all together, personally I don't see that ever happening.

Exactly 0% of DRM is great. If you want to know why just browse around the EFF website, StopDRMNow, DefectiveByDesign or any of the other sites/campaigns out there wanting to stop this bullshit.

 

 

Personally my look at it is almost all Anti-Cheat software run as a rootkit on the end users machine (access to ring 0 even) and yet no one complains about that. DRM doesn't even dig down that deep and people seem to have a problem with it. Sure if you buy a downloadable movie and end up forced to play it through some crappy DRM protected custom player, then I can understand the problem. Tho so far most DRM implementations (good or bad) serve a legitimate purpose in what they are intended to do.

I complain about some anti-cheat software. I told Valve to fuck off when it was revealed that they inspected the DNS cache of certain users. There is a big difference between anti-cheat software and DRM though. Anti-cheat software is there to make the experience better for paying customers. DRM is there to make the experience worse for customers, and give more power to the distributors.

The first one is good because it makes the product better. The second one is bad because it makes the product worse (hence the "defect by design" name of the anti-DRM campaign).

 

 

I will repeat myself yet again. DRM does not prevent piracy. It might work as long as your software is flying under the radar for crackers with enough knowledge, but as soon as it becomes slightly high profile they will pick it up, crack it and offer a better user experience to your lost customers.

[Opcode]

House of Cards was available to download like the day after it was launched on NetFlix. Their DRM did absolutely nothing to stop people from pirating it. It was like holding up a wet paper bag to stop a train.

Again, DRM will never stop piracy (unless you do like Blizzard and move some of the game's code to run on an external server, which failed miserably and pretty much made the game unplayable for their real customers). Anyone who thinks that clearly hasn't done their research. Piracy is almost always a distribution problem, and DRM is pretty much always at the core of that distribution problem. By using DRM you are actually contributing to people pirating because they get more reasons to do so.

A slip up is one thing, but being able to break the DRM Netflix uses entirely is another. The encryption used is too strong to be broken as of right now (keys are stored server side). The closest you can get is screen capturing.

 

So if I use your program and change computers, I will have to rebuy it? You do realize that the "just contact me personally and it will work out" is unscalable. DRM doesn't stop your program from being pirated. If it does then it's because it's not even worth the time it would take for people to crack it (and yes someone would be able to crack it, don't fool yourself into thinking your solution is perfect while everyone else has failed).

It is from the bottom of my heart I say that I think you have no idea what you're doing and I hope you never get the chance to implement such a horrible system into any widely used software. It is extremely anti-consumer to lock it to a specific set of hardware. If they buy your program I think they should be allowed to use it, even if they change their computer.

If you change computers you will have to re-buy it. Tho my software is licensed to under 20 customers at the moment, it's not intended for a wide scale of usage (it's a game hack). The DRM I have in place is enough to keep people at bay from trying to break it. I'm not saying nobody could because surely someone could, tho with my experience in breaking code daily I know how to keep my content pretty safe from being reversed. As for a widely adopted peice of software, I would never lock licensing to hardware. That's just not an intuitive approach at handling piracy. I would rather have license keys that communicate directly with my own custom licensing server. From there I could lock keys to regions so even if you shared it you wouldn't be able to use it unless you lived in the same local area (possible even global keys for travelers at a higher expense). So don't get me wrong, I only locked down this one piece of software to keep it from being leaked into others hands (keep in mind it's being sold to and among hackers and crackers).

 

Exactly 0% of DRM is great. If you want to know why just browse around the EFF website, StopDRMNow, DefectiveByDesign or any of the other sites/campaigns out there wanting to stop this bullshit.

Not all DRM is great but most of it is good. Even license keys used in software like WinRAR are a form of DRM. You need to understand that without DRM, all software would ultimately be free. The software ecosystem would collapse and we wouldn't have the majority of the software we have today.

 

I complain about some anti-cheat software. I told Valve to fuck off when it was revealed that they inspected the DNS cache of certain users. There is a big difference between anti-cheat software and DRM though. Anti-cheat software is there to make the experience better for paying customers. DRM is there to make the experience worse for customers, and give more power to the distributors.

The first one is good because it makes the product better. The second one is bad because it makes the product worse (hence the "defect by design" name of the anti-DRM campaign).

DRM in no ways destroys the end user experience. Explain to me how DRM has made Netflix bad, how DRM has made Windows bad, or how DRM destroys any software user experience at all. The only thing DRM does is stop you from being able to use something you clearly haven't paid for. Don't get me wrong, like said before I am not praising DRM tho it has been around for century's why complain about it now. It serves its purpose in protecting content creators.

 

I will repeat myself yet again. DRM does not prevent piracy. It might work as long as your software is flying under the radar for crackers with enough knowledge, but as soon as it becomes slightly high profile they will pick it up, crack it and offer a better user experience to your lost customers.

DRM does prevent piracy, my hardware locked software is a prime example. It hasn't been broken yet and I still get people who want to purchase it from time to time. This means my method of DRM has been successful in keeping pirates away and bringing my customers to me. Tho even if it were "cracked" there's no way they could offer a better user experience to the end user. I compile to FASM optimized machine code for a reason. I think your entire argument is over the fact that you don't like content being locked down (I don't blame ya, neither do I), tho from a content creators point of view it's one of the most feared situations that exists if you're developing premium software.

[cesrai]

But @LAwLz you were pirating and like @Opcode said: "when you're paying for a Netflix subscription you aren't buying content to begin with only the ability to access to it via streaming" so don't complain about Netfilx you must have known what you are paying for.

[Redliub]

@cesrai

@Opcode

 

There's no point in arguing with lawlz. He believes he has a right to other peoples' creative works that the creators don't have and likes to think of himself as the public intellectual of LTT. I've seen him do it before and he'll do it again.

 

And yes lawlz, of course the EFF and DbD hate DRM. At least for DbD it's their core business. The EFF is mostly nuts. They're GPL-enamored basement-dwelling software engineers that get mad when silly artists tell them they can't have their art for free. Because everyone knows that art is overvalued, amirite???

 

If not for their defense of actual internet freedoms they'd be irredeemably faulted by that flaw but as such I still donate to them year after year.

[ForsakenLive]

Not only a lot more efficient than flash, but REAL support on mobile and Linux. Finally!!

[Redliub]

I hope everyone that said the iPhone was doomed because of no flash and that Jobs was wrong about HTML5 is crying quietly in a corner somewhere.

 

Strange how Apple always manages to stay so far ahead of the curve...

[Opcode]

Not only a lot more efficient than flash, but REAL support on mobile and Linux. Finally!!

I was so pumped when Chrome finally got EME added so I can watch Netflix on Linux native