W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > July 2011

[Bug 13333] audio, video (and source) elements require param children or equivalent

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 09:35:21 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QmMzx-0008Rw-1f@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13333

--- Comment #32 from Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> 2011-07-28 09:35:17 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> <audio>
>   <source src="audio.mp3">
>     <param name="dlna-res-protocolInfo" value="rtsp-rtp-udp:*:audio/mpeg:*">
>   </source>
>   <source src="audio.mp3">
>     <param name="dlna-res-protocolInfo"
> value="http-get:*:audio/mpeg:DLNA.ORG_PN=MP3">
>   </source>
> </audio>

Why isn't this written as 
<audio>
  <source src="rtsp://something/audio.mp3">
  <source src="http://something/audio.mp3">
</audio>
?

(In reply to comment #28)
> (In reply to comment #26)
> > (In reply to comment #24)
> > > Regarding actual implementations of DRM support in browsers, there is more than
> > > one browser that supports DRM of video/audio content, and which AT THE CURRENT
> > > TIME makes use of the param child on object to communicate DRM parameters.
> > 
> > What browsers are those?
> 
> I am referring to browsers currently deployed on Televisions, Set-Top Boxes,
> and Mobile Devices, particularly those that participate in the playback and
> sharing of DRM controlled video or audio content. There are a variety of
> standards/specifications that apply to such devices, such as those defined by
> DLNA and other industry associations.

I meant the names of the browsers.

Why does your DRM scheme require parameters to be supplied alongside the
DRM-obfuscated file? That is, why isn't it sufficient to treat the DRM wrapper
as a special kind of file format? Like this:
<audio>
  <source src="audio.drm" type="audio/industry-association-drm-wrapper">
</audio>

Anyway HTML5 is trying to be a spec for the Web--a royalty-free system where
multiple vendors can implement clients without asking permission from a DRM
proprietor. While it's possible to reuse Web specs in closed systems, I think
we shouldn't design HTML5 for closed systems, since that's a distraction that
takes attention and focus away from making the Web better. That is, I think we
shouldn't spend time adding closed system-motivated features.

More concretely, I don't want to disrupt the parsing of <source> (a void
element--for better or worse--in shipped Web browsers) in order to cater to
closed-system use cases.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2011 09:35:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:14 UTC