Slashdot Mirror
Chrome 54 Arrives With YouTube Flash Embed Rewriting To HTML5 (venturebeat.com)
Krystalo quotes a report from VentureBeat: Google today launched Chrome 54 for Windows, Mac, and Linux. This release is mainly focused on developers, but the improvements to how the browser handles YouTube embeds is also noteworthy. You can update to the latest version now using the browser's built-in silent updater, or download it directly from google.com/chrome. Chrome 54 rewrites YouTube Flash players to use the YouTube HTML5 embed style. YouTube ditched Flash for HTML5 by default in January 2015, but the old embeds still exist all over the web. Google says the change improves both performance and security for its desktop browser. The report adds that "Chrome also now provides support for the custom elements V1 spec," which allows "developers to create custom HTML tags as well as define their API and behavior in JavaScript." BroadcastChannel API will also be implemented "to allow one-to-many messaging between windows, tabs, iframes, web workers, and service workers." You can read more about Chrome 54 on Google's blog post.
Can you turn autostart off?
That's the one biggest factor that should be decided for any web-browser. You should be able to prevent autostart video with the native settings without add-ins or extensions.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
"YOUR BROWSER SCORES 500 OUT OF 555 POINTS"
In terms of HTML 5 compatibility I found that chrome tends to be in the lead. But with HTML5 and chrome out for years now... We really should be able to at 100% HTML5 compatibility.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
This sounds like a great idea for a browser extension. Are any available for Firefox or older versions of Chrome? (I'm stuck on an old version of Chrome due to bugs they introduced that make it not work for me anymore.)
What is the advantage of bypassing Flash? Besides getting rid of this pile of crap that has been polluting the computer world for 15 years?
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Does anyone have a fix for that error about the missing i386 file on Ubuntu/Debian when certain 32 bit packages are present? I've found a few proposed solutions, but none of them work. On my main box (Qubes OS, using a Debian 8 template), this error is especially annoying because it is preventing Qubes' update scripts from properly executing.
If there's not a ready-made extension, Tampermonkey will run the Javascript of your choice. I imagine it would take several minutes to write the Javascript to switch the Flash embed to html5. Tampermonkey is useful for all sorts of things. I have a TM script for Slashdot that gets rid of that "hosts file" guy who used to be on here. Any post that mentions that file name more than once, or has certain other strings, disappears for me.
I like the way it takes a couple of seconds before it replaces the flash plugin just so you can see who's still banging rocks together (BBC I'm looking at you!)
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
I think the editors are just fucking with us now. Do we really think the slashdot editors have such a poor grasp of language that they throw out at least one completely unparsable headline every day unintentionally? Nobody is that stupid and incompetent. My money is that they're just trolling us now.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Doesn't that seem counter-intuitive for a web browser to be rewriting the contents on a web page? Shouldn't it be rendering it exactly as the developers intended it? Isn't this the browser equivalent of a compiler that inserts malicious code in programs that it compiles?
On top of all that, given that Google owns Youtube, you'd think they could change their code to use HTML5 on their side rather than writing a workaround in their web browser. Sounds like there's some internal conflict going on or something.
So, does that mean it also rewrites all the Flash security holes into HTML5 security holes as well ?!?
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Hell no. That way lies damnation, PDFs, and embedded images with text on them.
HTML is, first and foremost, about content. CSS is about style, but those are suggestions.
And Youtube has been converting uploaded videos to HTML5 complaint ones for a while now. I suppose they don't have the time to backconvert their whole catalog, although I heard they were slowly doing so..
Your ad here. Ask me how!
This means that I'll be able to use my new favorite Chrome extension - Video Speed Controller - to crank up the speed of more videos I encounter in my clickings. Not affiliated with that extension.
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
WebM is caching on. Oh, wait. . . .
You must be joking. I run Chromium (no flash installed) and there are many YouTube videos I cannot play. The /html5 test says it supports everything except h.264, and yet YouTube doesn't even support WebM correctly.
Somebody at Google got their pet project funded, but everybody else apparently felt free to ignore it.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Shouldn't it be rendering it exactly as the developers intended it?
The Flash -> HTML5 rewriting option does indeed display the page as intended, unless the intention was to waste bandwidth and CPU cycles and still display a sub-par rendering of the video. Or maybe if you are a fan of Flash and want everyone to suffer under it.
Speaking as someone who goes to extra trouble to add various extensions (e.g. ublock origin, privacy badger, tampermonkey, etc) to fix web pages because the browser still doesn't do enough, and who used proxies (squid-with-sleezeball, privoxy) before we had good browser extensions: no, it doesn't seem even slightly counter-intuitive. Why would it be counter-intuitive? I totally don't get it.
It should be rendering it however the user intends to see it.
Yes, it is, if you look at it loosely enough. But then, it's also the browser equivalent of a program loader than removes malicious code from the programs it loads, or a linker that binds symbolic references to addresses, or a program that compresses data, or an image resizer, or good ol' awk and sed, or ... it's the browser equivalent of the web browser itself (rendering pages instead of showing HTML tags)! Gee, filtering data is like a lot of things!
Sorry you've had so many bad experiences that the first analogy that came to your mind was something unpleasant. Do you use a lot of malware? Maybe cut back on that.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Not at all. The browser is a tool of the user to interpret the code on a website. How it behaves as a result should be up to the user. Realistically, it usually ends up being decided by the browser maker, but the page's developers shouldn't come first.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
Maybe take another look at what this exciting new feature does before you try to disable it.
And guess who's going to use that crap first? Advertisers. If you were able to avoid being targeted and tracked so far, you have zero chance now.
Shouldn't it be rendering it exactly as the developers intended it?
Malware and all?