- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:05:55 +1000
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > 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". Yes, that would be better. "Media" in general is indeed not restricted to A/V, but we have a HTMLMediaElement, which is what I was hanging "media" up on. ;-) Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Monday, 16 April 2012 03:06:44 UTC