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: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 23:26:51 +0000
Message-ID: <BLU002-W2EA9888DD2A257EA17313AA050@phx.gbl>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
CC: "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>

> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 15:05:58 -0500
> From: rubys@intertwingly.net
...
> For the first objection, the co-chairs sought advice from W3C 
> Management.  The following email is the result:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0122.html
> 
> Based on this input, the chairs find that this work is in scope.  Should 
> this situation change, we will revisit the decision at that time.

The problem is that a media element with the protection required would
be very attractive to all copyright holders, not just new release high
definition video content copyright owners.   The EME would allow a 
HTML engine to be implemented within the media element, similar to
an iframe.  The W3C management's analysis is faulty as it only tests
a very narrow use of the EME against the charter.   Many existing
standards are required to give the user control over the web
browser and a protected web browser conflicts with this and
an analysis of the wider uses for the EME would have shown this
conflict and rejected the EME as being out of scope.

> Examining the objections related to the question as to whether the 
> candidate FPWD contains enough information to be implemented 
> interoperably, the chairs found that much of the input on this has 
> lacked specifics, so at this time we are putting out a call for clear 
> and specific bug reports to be filed against the Encrypted Media 
> Extensions component in bugzilla[1] by February 15th.  Once that is 
> complete, we will seek an recommendation by the EME editors on how to 
> proceed with these bugs.

The objections based on EME being incompatible with open source
systems are clear enough that you can make a call now to reject it.

What more specifics do you need?
 
> Note that the W3C process requirements for a FPWD[2] are fairly low:
> 
>      Consensus is not a prerequisite for approval to publish; the
>      Working Group MAY request publication of a Working Draft even if
>      it is unstable and does not meet all Working Group requirements.
> 
> Accordingly, when we re-evaluate the request to publish an FPWD, we will 
> consider only concrete and specific objections that have been filed in 
> the form of bugs. The determination will be based on whether there is a 
> good faith effort to resolve such bugs, but with no requirement that all 
> new or currently open bugs have been closed

It's obvious that the proponents of EME can not resolve the conflict
between DRM and open source system.   Just make the call now and
save us the time - we have better things to do than defend the web
from such proposals.

cheers
Fred

 		 	   		  
Received on Friday, 8 February 2013 23:27:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 February 2013 23:27:23 GMT