On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Jet Villegas W3C <w3c@junglecode.net>wrote: > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > >> >> I'm not sure how we can do better than EME/CDM at the current time. We >> aren't going to define a universally acceptable, fully PAS defined CP >> system any time soon (if ever), and I highly doubt anyone else is either. >> However, if and when someone does so, then we could add it as a second >> mandatory CDM in a newer version of EME, along side the existing, and >> admittedly inadequate ClearKey CDM. >> >> Or do you have some concrete ideas about how to do this better? >> > > There's a concrete idea: a universally acceptable, fully PAS defined CP > system. I don't see anyone outside this group to be capable of building > that, and be able to reach consensus on such a system. I realize that > current CP systems in wide use have significant "black magic" to obfuscate > by entropy, but I don't think it's impossible to create a publicly > available implementation here. > Sure, it's a great idea. Cox would love to see something like this, if only that it would eliminate a fair part of the argument we've been seeing on this issue. However, such a system doesn't exist yet, and we can't predict if or when it will. In the mean time, Cox and others have legacy CP systems to support, and a real need to support them in the currently defined HTML5 context. Suggesting that a perfect, open CDM is possible is no reason to object to deploying EME as specified and based on non-perfect, partially open CDMs. At least AFAIC. To quote Voltaire, *Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien., i.e., the perfect is the enemy of the good.*
Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 21:30:17 UTC