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

On the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) document

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 11:10:03 -0500
Message-ID: <1360339803.1812.44.camel@chacal>
To: public-html-admin@w3.org
Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
There have been several discussions in the past two weeks around the
call for consensus to publish as a First Public Working Draft the
Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) document [1].

Since some of the discussions have been around whether the EME
specification is within the scope of the Working Group or not, the
HTML Chairs asked the W3C Team to provide clarifications, which I
provide below.

The HTML Working Group is chartered to provide "APIs for the
manipulation of linked media" [2]. As such, API extensions to the
HTMLMediaElement interface are in scope for the HTML Working
Group. This includes work items like the Media Source Extensions,
already published as a First Public Working Group, or the Encrypted
Media Extensions. In fact, the HTML Working Group created a mailing
list for that effect last year [3].

Plan 2014 promotes the use of modularity to manage the size and
complexity of the specifications while reducing social
conflict. Following the discussion around the HTML charter since May
2012 [4], we have refined the next charter to be more explicitly on
media extensions, without imposing as much constraints as possible
[5].

As this work is in scope, it is appropriate for the HTML Working Group
to work on extensions specs like the Encrypted Media Extensions
specification.

The latest proposed charter [4] mentions "additions to the
HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use cases such as live
events or premium content; for example, additions for: facilitating
adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions); supporting playback of
protected content". This draft charter will be circulated to the
Advisory Committee for review and comments shortly.

This clarification is not a statement of support towards the technical
approach taken in the EME specification or the CfC itself. While the
W3C Team do believe that use cases like premium content should be
addressed in the Open Web Platform in order to bring it to its full
potential, we're also looking forward for the HTML Working Group to
address any technical concerns raised against the EME draft.

Thank you,

Philippe,
for the W3C Team

[1]
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media-fpwd.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/04-html-wg-minutes.html#item05
[4] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/04-html-wg-minutes.html#item06
[5] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/
Received on Friday, 8 February 2013 16:10:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 February 2013 16:10:08 GMT