W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2012

Re: CfC: Create Media Task Force

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:30:03 -0700
Cc: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <75EDBD2C-2B6E-4004-9850-CED25A43254A@apple.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>

On Apr 15, 2012, at 7:07 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:

> 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?

I don't think anyone wants to suggest that. I would personally accept "Media Content Protection TF" as well. If you want to be technical, "media" is not necessarily limited to timed media. So perhaps "A/V Content Protection TF".

Received on Monday, 16 April 2012 02:31:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:22 UTC