[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
It isn't security. It is inscrutability. They don't buy into "View
Source".
They hate it. I don't think it's a good reason either because like many,
I learn from view source, but when you spend as much as these guys do on
content production, I guess you look for every possible way to maintain
a window of opportunity. Can you open and inspect a Flash file? (I don't
know really; I don't make Flash files.)
You have to argue with the game and computer-aided design vendors, Rusty.
The situation is that they get what they demand and if the W3C doesn't
cater,
that's ok, but the W3DC has to because these are their members with their
own perceptions and business models. The W3DC liases with the W3C and
as much as it can, tries to keep its standards consistent with those from
the W3C, but at the end of the day, it creates ISO standards which is
another reason to use FI.
len
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@metalab.unc.edu]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 11:00 AM
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Also, some customers demand
> a binary. They don't expose their content to inspection. Yes, it
> can be cracked; no, they don't care.
I see no reason the W3C should cater to such stupidity. I thought this
one was too obvious to state, but I guess I'll have to add "security" to
the list of features falsely attributed to binary formats by the
faithful without reason or evidence.
|
