On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: > Mark Watson, an editor and proponent of the Media TF asks: > > "Would it be sufficient in this case to be more specific and require that > there is at least one interoperable UA implementation" > > Robert O'Callahan replies: > "No, I don't think it would... in practice Hollywood requires all sites to > use some 'Microsoft CDM' or 'Google CDM' that is only supported by the DRM > vendor's browser." > What I actually said: > That would allow a situation where there's Clearkey or some other weak CDM > that can be used to demonstrate interoperability, but in practice Hollywood > requires all sites to use some "Microsoft CDM" or "Google CDM" that is only > supported by the DRM vendor's browser. > Your "creative editing" changed the meaning of what I said from a hypothetical to a bare assertion. That is upsetting. Please refrain from "creatively editing" me again. I don't believe my objection creates an impasse. I suggested multiple ways to address it, only one of which Mark has rejected so far. Rob -- “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. ... If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others?" [Matthew 5:43-47]
Received on Sunday, 15 April 2012 23:22:31 UTC