- From: Catherine Roy <ecrire@catherine-roy.net>
- Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 10:40:48 -0400
- To: Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>
- Cc: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>, Paul Cotton <paul.cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
Hi Andreas, If I am not mistaken, the EFF formal objection has not yet been addressed, or at the very least, the results regarding decisions related to that formal objection have not been made public. Unless I missed something, which is quite possible these days. If not, I would be very much interested in knowing where we are in terms of process relating to that formal objection and when we can expect to have an answer. Best regards, Catherine -- Catherine Roy www.catherine-roy.net On 2013-09-28, at 05:46, "Andreas Kuckartz" <a.kuckartz@ping.de> wrote: > Fred Andrews: >> I repeat, the director of the W3C has made no decision regarding >> the EME work, and this is a matter of recent public record. Your >> communication is misleading and misrepresents the director of the >> W3C and the work of the open web community. > > No, it does not. > > The director (unfortunately) has decided that work on EME is in scope of > the HTML WG and also made clear that this is not considered to be a > decision regarding the later acceptance of EME as a W3C standard. > > There are people (like myself) who are convinced that EME can not be > improved in a way which makes it compatible with the Open Web and > therefore think that work on EME is both a waste of time (like a > research project attempting to build a perpetuum mobile) and helping DRM > proponents. > > But it does not help the cause of DRM opponents at all to misrepresent > the current position of W3C management. > > Cheers, > Andreas >
Received on Saturday, 28 September 2013 14:41:19 UTC