Firefox, embedded youtube, and html5



  • So, I have had youtube's html5 trial on for quite some time, and I noticed some completely fucked up behaviour with Firefox.

    If you click on the title text of an embedded video, Firefox opens the youtube page for it in a new tab. As you would expect.

    What does not make sense is if, on another completely unrelated tab, you attempt to do the same thing. It fucking replaces the window it opened earlier. Even if you have since browsed to a different place, like gmail, Firefox will happily fuck it over to load the youtube page instead.

    Basically: Somewhere, somehow, Firefox is keeping single pointer to a tab it uses for html5 videos. And it will happily redirect it whenever you click on another embedded youtube video.



  • @Salamander said:

    So, I have had youtube's html5 trial on for quite some time, and I noticed some completely fucked up behaviour with Firefox.

    Yeah plenty of weird stuff going on. For some reason I see two control bars in this video about fruits.



  • Are you sure it's Firefox doing that, and not Youtube's script keeping a reference to the window and re-using it?



    I find myself pondering now the idea of a site popping up a window, then later redirecting it from a real login page to a phony one...



  • @lolwtf said:

    Are you sure it's Firefox doing that, and not Youtube's script keeping a reference to the window and re-using it?

    Doesn't happen on IE9 or chrome, so I doubt it.
    Besides, it still occurs if the second video you click on is on a completely unrelated page. In another window.



  •  Have a look at the code. To me, it sounds like they use a target, and if this target has a name (let's say, "youtubehtml5" or "woof" instead of "_new"), it will be reused. In which case, the fault would lie with YouTube, not Firefox.Firefox's default behaviour is to open a new tab instead of a new window if you have "_new" as the target, but also if you use a name that is not in use.

    The fact that IE9 does it differently may or may not be relevant. Mind, it could still be a bug in Firefox, but the above is an alternative (and arguably less far-fetched) explanation.



  • They're probably using the same "target" for each window. That's actually how that feature is supposed to be used-- if they want a new window, they need to specify a new target.



  • @Severity One said:

     Have a look at the code. To me, it sounds like they use a target, and if this target has a name (let's say, "youtubehtml5" or "woof" instead of "_new"), it will be reused. In which case, the fault would lie with YouTube, not Firefox.Firefox's default behaviour is to open a new tab instead of a new window if you have "_new" as the target, but also if you use a name that is not in use.

    The fact that IE9 does it differently may or may not be relevant. Mind, it could still be a bug in Firefox, but the above is an alternative (and arguably less far-fetched) explanation.

    I wouldn't count that as a bug on Firefox's part but a bug with browsers that didn't honor the target. I don't know of anything in the spec that should make a frame/window lose it's name just because the user navigated somewhere else, so it seems like it's more the fact that Firefox is keeping to the spec, the other browsers you used aren't, and YouTube devs don't test properly.

     



  • @Salamander said:

    youtube's html5 trial
     

    It's awesome, isn't it?

    It's like Youtube is powering up a magic spell that can make Flash go away.



  • @Severity One said:

    "_new" as the target

    *buzzer sound* W3C: "no version of HTML strict has ever included the target attribute."



  •  @toon said:

    @Severity One said:

    "_new" as the target

    *buzzer sound* W3C: "no version of HTML strict has ever included the target attribute."

    *buzzer sound* We're not talking about XHTML, but HTML5: http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/#the-a-element



  • @takashipl said:

     @toon said:

    @Severity One said:

    "_new" as the target

    *buzzer sound* W3C: "no version of HTML strict has ever included the target attribute."

    *buzzer sound* We're not talking about XHTML, but HTML5: http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-author/#the-a-element

    You are right, and I am wrong. I stand corrected. In fact, I found this: "The target attribute of the a and area elements is no longer deprecated, as it is useful in Web applications, e.g. in conjunction with iframe." So I guess I was thrown off by that sentence I quoted.



  • @toon said:

    You are right, and I am wrong. I stand corrected. In fact, I found something. So I guess I'll be thrown off a cliff.
    FTFY



  • @toshir0 said:

    @toon said:

    You are right, and I am wrong. I stand corrected. In fact, I found something. So I guess I'll be thrown off a cliff.
    FTFY

    Maybe it's just me, but I expect the W3C to tell the truth about their own standards. If they don't, how is that my fault? Am I supposed to scour the internet in case they're liars, or what?



  • @ASheridan said:

    I don't know of anything in the spec that should make a frame/window lose it's name just because the user navigated somewhere else, so it seems like it's more the fact that Firefox is keeping to the spec, the other browsers you used aren't, and YouTube devs don't test properly.

    How about physically writing a new address in the address bar and pressing enter? It's quite bloody clear that the user is now doing something completely different, so it should not be possible for any page to fuck with it.
    If the spec says that it's perfectly fine to change the page anyway, the spec is wrong and Firefox is broken for implementing it.



  • @Salamander said:

    @ASheridan said:

    I don't know of anything in the spec that should make a frame/window lose it's name just because the user navigated somewhere else, so it seems like it's more the fact that Firefox is keeping to the spec, the other browsers you used aren't, and YouTube devs don't test properly.

    How about physically writing a new address in the address bar and pressing enter? It's quite bloody clear that the user is now doing something completely different, so it should not be possible for any page to fuck with it.
    If the spec says that it's perfectly fine to change the page anyway, the spec is wrong and Firefox is broken for implementing it.

     

    What does completely change the address mean though? Imagine a scenario where a site pops open a sort of preview iframe, the kind that is popular with online site builders. The user starts navigating through that to see how the various pages in their site are doing. The site builder in this case should still have full control over the window and be able to change the content shown in the window it opened up.

    Aside from this, someone posted in the code that the YouTube link is attempting to open the new window with "_new" which isn't in the spec as far as I'm aware. It should be "_blank". So it's really not Firefox's fault, it's still YouTube.

     



  • @toon said:

    I expect the W3C to tell the truth about their own standards

    Ohh, so naive, expect nothing from them except vague retarded standards
    @toon said:
    how is that my fault?

    See above
    @toon said:
    Am I supposed to scour the internet in case they're liars, or what?

    Yes, see above



  • @ASheridan said:

    What does completely change the address mean though?

    Take a look at the top of your browser. There is a text box there, which right now should say something similar to 'forums.thedailywtf.com'.
    That is the address bar.
    If the user alters text in that box and presses enter, it generally means they don't care what the page was doing before; the page is now the user's bitch and it should go do what they just told it to do.
    No more, no less.



  • @Salamander said:

    No more, no less.
     

    IF ONLY THE WORLD WAS SO SIMPLE but it isn't.



  • @Salamander said:

    @ASheridan said:

    What does completely change the address mean though?

    Take a look at the top of your browser. There is a text box there, which right now should say something similar to 'forums.thedailywtf.com'.
    That is the address bar.
    If the user alters text in that box and presses enter, it generally means they don't care what the page was doing before; the page is now the user's bitch and it should go do what they just told it to do.
    No more, no less.

     

    I know what an address bar is kid 😉

    Look at the rest of my reply where I outlined a valid use-case for wanting the behaviour that the spec gives. I might edit the URL in the address bar to quickly show a page in said site within the preview window, perhaps because it is quicker than getting there using menus on the site.

    Look also where I outlined exactly what YouTube had done wrong and how simple it was to fix. In-fact, mixing up _blank and _new is pretty-much a schoolboy error, the kind you don't expect a giant like YouTube to make.

     



  • @toon said:

    "The target attribute of the a and area elements is no longer deprecated, as it is useful in Web applications, e.g. in conjunction with iframe."

    iframes are considered legitimate markup still? Funny, last time I found a reason to use them, I felt dirty... they are quite handy, but for some reason I thought they were sort of frowned upon by the Internet Illuminati... But then I could be confusing them with regular frames...



  • @toon said:

    Maybe it's just me, but I expect the W3C to tell the truth about their own standards. If they don't, how is that my fault? Am I supposed to scour the internet in case they're liars, or what?

    It's easier just to assume they're liars. Or, at best, extraordinarily incompetent.



  • @dhromed said:

    @Salamander said:

    youtube's html5 trial
     

    It's awesome, isn't it?

    It's like Youtube is powering up a magic spell that can make Flash go away.

    Does it have a working volume slider? I've yet to see a HTML5 app that has a working volume slider. Because God-fucking-knows you want your HTML5 version of Angry Birds to BLAST GIGA-DECIBALS OF SOUND OUT OF YOUR LAPTOP IN CASE YOU START IT WHILE ON A BUS LOUDER LOUDER LOUDER HTML5 APPS LOUDER!!!

    It's like the practice of software development is going back in time. In 1995, video games all had volume sliders. In 2012, they do not. FIGURE THAT ONE OUT.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @dhromed said:

    @Salamander said:

    youtube's html5 trial
     

    It's awesome, isn't it?

    It's like Youtube is powering up a magic spell that can make Flash go away.

    Does it have a working volume slider? I've yet to see a HTML5 app that has a working volume slider. Because God-fucking-knows you want your HTML5 version of Angry Birds to BLAST GIGA-DECIBALS OF SOUND OUT OF YOUR LAPTOP IN CASE YOU START IT WHILE ON A BUS LOUDER LOUDER LOUDER HTML5 APPS LOUDER!!!

    It's like the practice of software development is going back in time. In 1995, video games all had volume sliders. In 2012, they do not. FIGURE THAT ONE OUT.

    Not just volume sliders, but separate ones for music, sound effects, and character speech. This was great because so many games had music and sound so loud by default that you couldn't hear the talking.



  • @ASheridan said:

    Look at the rest of my reply where I outlined a valid use-case for wanting the behaviour that the spec gives. I might edit the URL in the address bar to quickly show a page in said site within the preview window, perhaps because it is quicker than getting there using menus on the site.

    One use case for an astonishingly small number of users is not a valid reason, especially since it affects all users.

    @ASheridan said:

    Look also where I outlined exactly what YouTube had done wrong and how simple it was to fix. In-fact, mixing up _blank and _new is pretty-much a schoolboy error, the kind you don't expect a giant like YouTube to make.

    I really don't care who's fault it is. It could be youtube's fault for not thoroughly testing things. It could be the spec's fault for not realising that _new is likely to be a common mistake (or even just putting it there because it makes sense: it's a new page, yes?). It could also be the spec's fault for not realising people may actually want to do something completely different in the same window. It may be Firefox's fault for implementing the spec completely verbatim.
    The bottom line is, in Firefox it is entirely possible (for example) to have an embedded video on thedailywh.at to redirect an open eBay page to youtube.
    That is the problem.



  • So tell them about it so they can fix it. It's a beta. It has bugs. Get over it.



  • @Salamander said:

    So, I have had youtube's html5 trial on for quite some time, and I noticed some completely fucked up behaviour with Firefox.

    If you click on the title text of an embedded video, Firefox opens the youtube page for it in a new tab. As you would expect.

    What does not make sense is if, on another completely unrelated tab, you attempt to do the same thing. It fucking replaces the window it opened earlier. Even if you have since browsed to a different place, like gmail, Firefox will happily fuck it over to load the youtube page instead.

    Basically: Somewhere, somehow, Firefox is keeping single pointer to a tab it uses for html5 videos. And it will happily redirect it whenever you click on another embedded youtube video.
     

     

    I'd think it's youtube's fault, javascript opening the window/tab gets the window/tab object, and re-uses it. it's still the same window even if you browse to another page, and youtube will happily (and incorrectly, it should be opened in a new window/tab again) use it. I don't know why FF would even need a separate tab for html5 video(s).



  • @Salamander said:

    So, I have had youtube's html5 trial on for quite some time, and I noticed some completely fucked up behaviour with Firefox.

    If you click on the title text of an embedded video, Firefox opens the youtube page for it in a new tab. As you would expect.

    What does not make sense is if, on another completely unrelated tab, you attempt to do the same thing. It fucking replaces the window it opened earlier. Even if you have since browsed to a different place, like gmail, Firefox will happily fuck it over to load the youtube page instead.

    Basically: Somewhere, somehow, Firefox is keeping single pointer to a tab it uses for html5 videos. And it will happily redirect it whenever you click on another embedded youtube video.

     Lizard, you need to grab a dictionary and come up with some civil words you can use. Otherwise your limited vocabulary will continue to turn off the more educated among us here.



  • @SilentRunner said:

    Otherwise your limited vocabulary will continue to turn off the more educated among us here.
     

    Trust me when I say that access to a vast set of lingual elements is not going to improve the quality of his/her actual message.



  • @SilentRunner said:

    Lizard, you need to grab a dictionary and come up with some civil words you can use. Otherwise your limited vocabulary will continue to turn off the more educated among us here.
    I'm reasonably sure we work\dabble in IT, and I am also reasonably sure that swearing ability is almost a requirement in IT.



  • @ekolis said:

    iframes are considered legitimate markup still? Funny, last time I found a reason to use them, I felt dirty... they are quite handy, but for some reason I thought they were sort of frowned upon by the Internet Illuminati... But then I could be confusing them with regular frames...

    I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure iframes are still actually used by some Javascript frameworks to allow the back button to be more useful for webapps that use a lot of AJAX. They're always hidden and serve another purpose than they were originally designed to do, though.



  • iframes are used for everything. They are not deprecated and never will be. The end.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    iframes are used for everything. They are not deprecated and never will be. The end.
     

    I use them to keep my coffee table from wobbling, to get my washday whites their brightest, and to make mounds and mounds of julienne fries.



  • @Douglasac said:

    I am also reasonably sure that swearing ability is almost a requirement in IT.

    Swearing and wearing [jeans|sweatpants|thinkgeek t-shirts] is a perk that one must agree to let go if one wants to get higher-paying gigs and break through the red bull ceiling. Something to keep in mind if someday you get tired of moving kanban post-its or closing tickets.



  • @Speakerphone Dude said:

    Swearing and wearing [jeans|sweatpants|thinkgeek t-shirts] is a perk that one must agree to let go if one wants to get higher-paying gigs and break through the red bull ceiling. Something to keep in mind if someday you get tired of moving kanban post-its or closing tickets
    So when you get promoted into IT management\CEOship\whatever, computers start doing your every bidding in a timely manner?



  • @da Doctah said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    iframes are used for everything. They are not deprecated and never will be. The end.
     

    I use them to keep my coffee table from wobbling, to get my washday whites their brightest, and to make mounds and mounds of julienne fries.

     

    And the coffee is just excellent.

     



  • @Douglasac said:

    @Speakerphone Dude said:
    Swearing and wearing [jeans|sweatpants|thinkgeek t-shirts] is a perk that one must agree to let go if one wants to get higher-paying gigs and break through the red bull ceiling. Something to keep in mind if someday you get tired of moving kanban post-its or closing tickets
    So when you get promoted into IT management\CEOship\whatever, computers start doing your every bidding in a timely manner?
     

    What he means is start dressing and behaving like a fucking adult at some point.



  • @dhromed said:

    What he means is start dressing and behaving like a fucking adult at some point.
     

    Sharn't. Poopy-head.



  • I realise that in my previous few posts, I was being a condescending ass, so I apologise.



  • @Salamander said:

    I realise that in my previous few posts, I was being a condescending ass, so I apologise.

    Let me put my Tony Robbins hat and offer you a suggestion: if you apologize more than once a year (to anybody), you are apologizing too much, and contrary to what you may think, that does not make people like you more. People who apologize too much (male or female) look insecure and needy.

    If you prefer, consider that if you get caught doing one of the following:

    • Cheating on your significant other
    • Fondling/groping/kissing the 14 y/o kid of your boss during a company BBQ
    • Getting drunk and driving your grandmother's car thru the front window of a donut shop
    • Taking some "e" and playing with yourself in public during Christmas Mass at your mom's church
    • Stealing the newspaper from your neighbour for many years

    ... then you need to apologize. Otherwise you just realize quietly that you were being wrong, you suck it up like a grown up and you stop doing it - but you don't go around apologizing and keeping your ears down like a cat that got caught shredding toilet paper.

    If you are a big wuss and can't help it, at least say "I'm sorry" instead of "I apologize", that way at least some of the people will think that you find the situation unfortunate, not that you are offering yourself as a carpet on which they can wipe their feet and take a piss.



  • @Speakerphone Dude said:

    If you are a big wuss and can't help it, at least say "I'm sorry" instead of "I apologize", that way at least some of the people will think that you find the situation unfortunate, not that you are offering yourself as a carpet on which they can wipe their feet and take a piss.
     

    Lesson learned: don't take social advice from self-important people.



  • @Speakerphone Dude said:

    if you apologize more than once a year (to anybody), you are apologizing too much, and contrary to what you may think, that does not make people like you more. People who apologize too much (male or female) look insecure and needy.
     

    Not necessarily.  It just makes me think they're Canadians.



  • @Speakerphone Dude said:

    If you apologize more than once a year (to anybody), you are apologizing too much, and contrary to what you may think, that does not make people like you more.

    I do not apologise to make people like me; I apologise when I realise I was being an ass.
    Whether or not people like me is their decision.



  • @Salamander said:

    I do not apologise to make people like me; I apologise when I realise I was being an ass.

    That is not a justification: that is a trigger (or rationalization). If you don't care what people think, then I guess you apologize to be at peace with your [conscience|soul|god|karma] - some kind of atonement. I suspect that you've been raised by catholic people.

    This being said, I just glanced at the whole thread and I don't see why you feel bad. IMHO you have miles to go before you even reach the average level of unpleasantness on the forum and some people (me included) will always raise the bar.

    In any event I've done an incredibly extensive research online and came up with this link for you: Why Over-Apologizing Is a Bad Thing



  • @Salamander said:

    I do not apologise to make people like me; I apologise when I realise I was being an ass.

    Gets my vote. Consider it accepted, purlioned and banked (before someone else gets their grubby mits all over it).

    @Speakerphone Dude said:

    In any event I've done an incredibly extensive research online and came up with this link for you: Why Over-Apologizing Is a Bad Thing

    Do you think he was over-apologising then?



  • @Speakerphone Dude said:

    In any event I've done an incredibly extensive research online and came up with this link for you: Why Over-Apologizing Is a Bad Thing

    Only a single man could even imagine that such a thing is possible.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @Speakerphone Dude said:
    In any event I've done an incredibly extensive research online and came up with this link for you: Why Over-Apologizing Is a Bad Thing

    Only a single man could even imagine that such a thing is possible.

    With opinions like yours no wonder Viagra is so popular. There is a difference between being married/engaged and being whipped.



  • @Cassidy said:

    @Salamander said:

    I do not apologise to make people like me; I apologise when I realise I was being an ass.

    Gets my vote. Consider it accepted, purlioned and banked (before someone else gets their grubby mits all over it).

    @Speakerphone Dude said:

    In any event I've done an incredibly extensive research online and came up with this link for you: Why Over-Apologizing Is a Bad Thing

    Do you think he was over-apologising then?

    Yes. He/She was (I suspect it's She). Also you both should let go of the Ancient World way of spelling, apologize is with Z, not S.



  • @Speakerphone Dude said:

    @boomzilla said:
    @Speakerphone Dude said:
    In any event I've done an incredibly extensive research online and came up with this link for you: Why Over-Apologizing Is a Bad Thing

    Only a single man could even imagine that such a thing is possible.


    With opinions like yours no wonder Viagra is so popular. There is a difference between being married/engaged and being whipped.

    TDEMSYR. If you were really whipped, you wouldn't need to apologize in the first place. Or you would have actually meant it in the first place, and gone on to change your ways. Enjoy your solitude.



  • @Speakerphone Dude said:

    @Cassidy said:

    Do you think he was over-apologising then?

    Yes.

     

    You judge it to be "too much" from a single occurrence?

     



  • @dhromed said:


    @Speakerphone Dude said:

    @Cassidy said:

    Do you think he was over-apologising then?


    Yes.
     

    You judge it to be "too much" from a single occurrence?

     


    At the risk of being a pedantic dick-weed: if someone apologizes when no apology is necessary, then he has over-apologized, even it it's only a single occurrence. Perhaps Speakerphone Dude was not offended?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.