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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:46:41 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCJQBOn=9JZnApMFmAXmKgNZ1chyOKDn0e8+W0ceTP_Ow@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Vickers, Mark" <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>
Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>, "<public-html-admin@w3.org>" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Vickers, Mark
<Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> The question at hand is not approving the spec, but to approve publishing the First Public Working Draft. The purpose of FPWD is to "signal to the community to begin reviewing the document." Public review is a cornerstone of our open process.
>
> Based on the rich discussion from the CfC, it seems the community is ready for such a review. It would be great if we could focus the discussion on the specification particulars to understand in what cases changes can be made to fix issues and in what cases wholesale alternative proposals can be presented.
>
> The alternative to publishing FPWD would likely be for this work to continue without such public review, which benefits no one.
>
> So, I think all parties benefit by publishing FPWD and getting all the alternatives on the table.

Working Draft is also the first meaningful status for a spec on the
Rec track in the W3C.  Please don't pretend that it's nothing more
than a formality, or merely a method of requesting review.  It also
implicitly asserts that the HTMLWG and by extension the W3C is taking
on the spec as a legitimate work item which it desires to send to
completion.  This is a powerful messaging channel when communicating
with the public - it's exciting when a draft upgrades from ED to FPWD!

If we in the group don't feel the spec is appropriate to pursue at
all, opposing publishing it is the appropriate means to do so.

I would also appreciate it if you and others didn't imply that
substantive changes would actually come out of public review.  All of
the opposition in this and related threads was laid out with even
greater force when this spec was first introduced, and it was ignored.
 Every aspect that was brought up as terrible and worthy of blocking
the spec then are still present.  Your corporation's interests are not
aligned with the goals of the open web, and pretending otherwise
accomplishes nothing.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 01:47:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 January 2013 01:47:29 GMT