3 ms·
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/lowering-your-standards https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/lowering-your-standard... is where I got the 'view source' l
by w0rd-driven 13y ago
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/lowering-your-standards https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/lowering-your-standard... is where I got the 'view source' line. If its hyperbolic, the EFF does a very good job of pushing it.
I thought another article pointed blocking the command out in the spec but I could be totally wrong there. Even so, nothing is stopping anyone from building a dumb front end and placing the entirety of the logic in the DRM container. Netflix isn't an argument in countries where it doesn't apply, like much of the world. View source and the actual openness of the web would be that argument, however. If its a concoction made up by what the EFF believes this fight would go versus an actual result of the fight as it stands, then I sadly fell for it pretty hard. Its not a difficult leap to make but I'm definitely more interested in facts over opinion based on someone's failing attempt at predicting the future.
- takluyver 13y agoI think the EFF is engaging in some FUD themselves on this. There's some other project exploring ways to protect source code of web applications, and the EFF suggests that, now that the W3C has touched some form of DRM, that will be able to push a way for sites to disable 'view source'. I don't think that's realistic - minification and copyright work well enough to protect JS code already. I'm disappointed that the EFF is resorting to scare tactics like this rather than debating the actual issue at hand.