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

Re: On the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) document

From: Benoit Piette <benoit.piette@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 15:57:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CABSipCnctK=BZeYK_-if5g59xLKOiG+FwacAY_W8crTnbXje9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Cc: public-html-admin@w3.org, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
I have been reading some of these discussions and from your email, I
understand that EME is in the charter of the HTML Working Group. There is
one clarification I would like to be made though is how this specification
is in accordance with the W3C mission [1]. Especially the Open Standard
Principal [2] and the parts about “Collective Empowerment” and
“Availability”, which to my understanding, especially in the context of Web
standards, would cover complete implementation with free software licenses.



In itself, this specification can respect the Open Standard Principal, but
to serve the final use cases, it needs other pluggable modules.



Would it be a concern to the W3C if the pluggable modules of EME that are
necessary to implement the complete business need cannot respect the W3C’s
mission, including the Open Standard Principals ?



To make a comparison to the video element, which did not achieve complete
interoperability, there are at least some implementations that can respect
W3C mission and serve the uses cases. I am skeptical that this can be the
case with this specification (from what I have been reading, I don’t have a
lot of technical knowledge on this particular subject).



I would like more information on how EME can respect the W3C mission. I am
sorry if I haven’t interpreted the mission correctly, but I think it would
help disperse any misunderstanding and assure that we keep the discussion
on technical levels.



Thank you in advance,

Benoit Piette



[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission.html

[2] http://open-stand.org/principles/

2013/2/8 Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>

> 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 Saturday, 9 February 2013 20:57:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 9 February 2013 20:57:35 GMT