YouTube now works without scripting allowed

[Tom T.]

Firefox 3.6.23 and NoScript 2.1.5, RequestPolicy, RefControl, JSView, and Certificate Patrol on Win XP. All embeddings default-blocked, including at whitelisted sites.

I've always whitelisted youtube.com and ytimg.com, as per http://noscript.net/faq#qa5_3.

For unrelated reasons, I found myself at YT with both of those blocked. (was testing something else) And yet, the chosen video loaded and played after clicking the NS block-logo and OK.

Tried the search function - it worked - and the selected video also played after Temp-Allow the Flash object.

The *only* permission was through RequestPolicy - allow requests from youtube to ytimg.

Can anyone else reproduce this, on any version of Firefox or SeaMonkey?
Any ideas why these are no longer needed, apparently?

Reproduced again just now, before hitting "submit" for this post. If I don't need them, won't allow them.

[therube]

Neither youtube.com nor ytimg.com are required to play video's on Youtube.
(Now you may not have full functionality, but nonetheless...)

[Tom T.]

Neither youtube.com nor ytimg.com are required to play video's on Youtube.
(Now you may not have full functionality, but nonetheless...)

Then the FAQ should be modified accordingly. Will request that.

I missed the change; thanks.
Resolved.

[Giorgio Maone]

No need to change the FAQ, IMHO.
FAQ 5.3, which I assume is the one we're talking about, starts with "Movies are not working on the Youtube site.", which is an assumption which may or may not be true. If it's false (movies are working), the rest of the FAQ has no interest to the reader. If tomorrow the site changes again and scripting is required (as it's likely with HTML 5 videos to have visual player controls) we're already covered.

[Tom T.]

FAQ 5.3, which I assume is the one we're talking about,

Yes, as per OP.

starts with "Movies are not working on the Youtube site.", which is an assumption which may or may not be true. If it's false (movies are working), the rest of the FAQ has no interest to the reader. If tomorrow the site changes again and scripting is required (as it's likely with HTML 5 videos to have visual player controls) we're already covered.

OK, thanks. Based on Least Privilege, I'm removing them from my w/l. And if you're very confident that it will soon require them, then leaving them in the default w/l makes sense.

But FAQ 1.5 does *not* include YouTube and ytimg in the "What's in the default w/l, and why?"

For accuracy, shouldn't these two be included there, with the explanation as above: "The site may or may not work as you like without them, but it's anticipated that they'll be needed soon, due to new web standards." ... or something like that? Else there's a discrepancy when a user discovers them in w/l, doesn't know why they're there, and 1.5 doesn't list them. ... just a thought.

[Giorgio Maone]

But FAQ 1.5 does *not* include YouTube and ytimg in the "What's in the default w/l, and why?"

For accuracy, shouldn't these two be included there.

Added, as

youtube.com, ytimg.com
Youtube, where basic video reproduction may work scriptless, but most other features require them.

[Tom T.]

Excellent, thanks.