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

Re: EME and proprietary plug-ins

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:00:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCHraq1AhF+LV+BxhLvg37qJcCr1UmgDBN-sP9JYJUMfA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
>> EME poses the threat of unleveling the playing
>> field for browsers even within operating systems in addition to
>> keeping the playing field unlevel among operating systems.
>
> If unleveling means moving away from the status quo of using only
> Flash/Silverlight for distribution of protected media content, then you are
> correct.

You know what Henri means, and it's not that.  He means, very
obviously, that individual browsers may be locked out even on a given
OS.

> The issue of OS playing field is a non-issue.

Several people disagree.  I'm not sure why you think it's a non-issue,
or why you think it's *such* a non-issue that it can be dismissed
out-of-hand like that.  Producing technologies that will only be
usable on particular OSes is a bad thing.

> EME will enable new opportunities, while the status quo keeps content locked
> out from the web or locked into the Flash/Silverlight solutions.

The "new opportunities" are locking content into new plugins.  It's
not materially different from the status quo, and you shouldn't try to
pretend that it is.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 18:01:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 13 February 2013 18:01:26 GMT