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

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

From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:49:59 +0000
To: "<robert@ocallahan.org>" <robert@ocallahan.org>
CC: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, "David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> (ddorwin@google.com)" <ddorwin@google.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <29B91667-949E-40DE-BDB0-17D11096C612@netflix.com>

On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:12 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com<mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>> wrote:
I'm still sympathetic to that goal, specifically the idea that where an OS or other platform supports a DRM framework with a public API, then there should be a public specification allowing people to fill the gap between the EME API and that platform API. And I think that where there is a DRM framework built in to an OS or other platform, then the APIs to that should be public.

Great!

But I am not sure what we can do in the W3C process or specification to cause or even require that.

How about making the EME spec require that CDMs used with EME be registered in a central registry, and then making such registration conditional on the above requirements be met?

I've a suspicion that making it a hard requirement is more likely to cause the registry to remain empty than to influence the DRM vendors to publishing the information. It's the DRM vendors that you need to convince.

There's also a bit of a definitional problem: what about DRM components that just ship as part of an application ? How do you define the requirements for them to be included in such a registry ? Wouldn't it seem unfair if one product that ships to free everyone in some platform or OS (and so is widely available) has to jump through certain hoops that another that application developers have to pay to integrate doesn't ? Wouldn't that actually discourage freely shipping such platform components ?

Still, I expect that the interop phase of this standard - if it goes ahead - will be much easier if the specifications and APIs mentioned above exist and so I very much encourage their publication.

…Mark


Rob
--
Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave — just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” [Matthew 20:25-28]
Received on Friday, 25 January 2013 16:51:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 25 January 2013 16:51:48 GMT