- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:07:12 +1000
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 15, 2012, at 8:44 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote: > >> On 14.04.2012 23:59, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>> Objection: I object to this task force being >>> named the "HTML WG Media Task Force", as >>> this implies their area of responsibility would >>> be all HTML Media work. ... >>> I previously suggested "HTML WG Encrypted Media >>> Task Force" and no one objected to this alternate >>> name. Changing the name would remove my objection. >> >> I agree that "Media Task Force" is not appropriate. But "Encrypted Media >> Task Force" also is not appropriate for the same reason. >> >> The Task Force (if it is created at all) should be named in a way which >> does not hide the real intentions. Two suggestions: >> - Content Protection Task Force > > I think "Content Protection Task Force" is ok and not unreasonably prejudicial either way. I think the other suggested names are not appropriate. "Content Protection TF" is not restricted to audio and video. Are we suggesting that the TF is to work on content protection schemes for any type of content, not just media? Regards, Silvia.
Received on Monday, 16 April 2012 02:08:02 UTC