W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > February 2013

Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

From: Joe Steele <steele@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 18:55:45 -0800
To: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>
CC: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
Message-ID: <905C7C99-F41E-4D3C-985D-E32F7C6A1202@adobe.com>
I would like to hear what you would consider to be a good enough specification for a CDM.

Are you are talking about the API interface that the UA exposes for a CDM to plug into?
I would be interested in participating in this discussion, but I don't believe that interface should be part of this spec.

Are you talking about a description of the key request protocols?
My concern with this is that there is no consensus on what the best practice is here. I think the spec's approach of allowing the application to mediate all communications, while not being forced to understand everything is a useful compromise.

The format of the protected content seems to be fairly well-documented by the references within the spec (e.g. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html#iso).

Joe Steele
steele@adobe.com<mailto:steele@adobe.com>

On Jan 31, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org<mailto:robert@ocallahan.org>> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com<mailto:glenn@skynav.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org<mailto:robert@ocallahan.org>> wrote:
I do expect URIs, image, media and font formats used on the Web to be fully specified somewhere, and that is standard practice today.

And CDMs will be fully specified somewhere as well.

I certainly hope that's the case. If it is, then granting my objection is hardly any concession at all.




 *   input method editors
 *   geolocation devices

These do not affect interop.

Yes they do.

Please explain how. I'm not aware of cases where specifying IME behavior was needed to solve interop problems, even though I've worked on Mozilla IME code in the past.


While it is reasonable to define a voluntary registry, it is not reasonable to require registration or to require that documentation be fully open. Who would enforce this even if it were defined?

Whoever maintains the registry.

No registry I'm aware of does such a thing. You are naive to believe it feasible.

For example, http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226 defines IANA procedures for setting up a registry, and supports placing requirements on submissions to the registry. It explicitly identifies the option of a "Specification Required" policy:

Values and their meanings must be documented in a permanent and readily available public specification, in sufficient detail so that interoperability between independent implementations is possible.

http://www.iana.org/protocols shows that this policy is very widely used.

Rob
--
Wrfhf pnyyrq gurz gbtrgure naq fnvq, “Lbh xabj gung gur ehyref bs gur Tragvyrf ybeq vg bire gurz, naq gurve uvtu bssvpvnyf rkrepvfr nhgubevgl bire gurz. Abg fb jvgu lbh. Vafgrnq, jubrire jnagf gb orpbzr terng nzbat lbh zhfg or lbhe freinag, naq jubrire jnagf gb or svefg zhfg or lbhe fynir — whfg nf gur Fba bs Zna qvq abg pbzr gb or freirq, ohg gb freir, naq gb tvir uvf yvsr nf n enafbz sbe znal.” [Znggurj 20:25-28]
Received on Saturday, 2 February 2013 02:56:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 2 February 2013 02:56:17 GMT