W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > October 2013

[Bug 20967] EME does not allow independent implementation, excluding open source implementations.

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 17:03:47 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-20967-2486-j88YrHWAXt@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

--- Comment #23 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> ---
(In reply to Andreas Kuckartz from comment #22)
> (In reply to Sam Ruby from comment #21)
> > Based on this comment, it is clear that your definition of "Open" differs
> > from the W3C management's definition of this term.
> So far I have not seen this "W3C management's definition" in writing. 

The essence of your bug report is that EME is not in scope due to your
interpretation of writings of the W3C that exist entirely outside of the HTML
WG.  I again maintain that's a disagreement between you and those that produced
those documents that you are citing.

I once again encourage you to work with those that produced those documents,
and come back to this working group with the results.

> There
> are still people who erroneously think that the term "open" used by the W3C
> implies that W3C "open" standards can be implemented as Open Source. It
> would help to have such a definition in a form which avoids such
> misunderstandings.
> I was not aware that Tim Berners-Lee had *already decided* that his final
> acceptance of EME will *not* depend on whether it can be implemented as Open
> Source. Thanks for that important clarification. I trust that you do not
> misrepresent his position.

I at no time made that statement.  Again, I think this is a misunderstanding by
you on the position of W3C management.  And once again, I encourage you to work
with W3C management to come to a common understanding.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 17:03:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:44 UTC