Re: Netflix claims that EME is a W3C specification

Glenn Adams:
> and it is expected to be published as a FPWD once the current
> bugs have been adequately addressed.

Not all current bugs *can* be addressed adequately without preventing
the publication as a First Public Working Draft at the same time. But I
do not need and will not go into detail here.

It is remarkable that the decision that there is *no* consensus to
publish the document as an First Public Working Draft is completely
ignored by the Netflix blog entry. In this context the claim that EME is
a W3C specification amounts to a public misrepresentation of the state
of affairs.

But I am beginning to repeat myself and will stop that here.

> To use the language of the W3C Process document [1],
> EME is presently a Work in Progress and the HTML WG intends to
> advance it to Recommendation.
...
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/

It seems to be necessary to verify factual statements made by DRM
proponents.

That process document states in section 7.1:

"The maturity levels 'Working Draft' and 'Working Group Note' represent
the possible initial states of a technical report in the development
process."

Section 7.1.1 states:

"A Working Draft is a document that W3C has published for review by the
community, including W3C Members, the public, and other technical
organizations."

And section 7.4.1 defines that the "Document maturity level" of a "First
Public Working Draft" is "Working Draft".

In other words: EME has *not* yet reached one of the "initial states of
a technical report in the development process".

That process document also contains the word "specification", but *only*
in the context of a "W3C Recommendation (REC)".

> In conclusion, there is nothing inconsistent about referring to EME
> as a "W3C specification".

Thanks for another illustration of the methods used by DRM proponents.

Cheers,
Andreas

Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 21:21:16 UTC