Re: CfC: Create Media Task Force

I thought I sent this last week, but just found it in my drafts folder: it's a for-the-record statement of the reasons for our support of the TF …

On Apr 3, 2012, at 11:58 AM, Paul Cotton wrote:

> ** RESOLUTION: The HTML Working Group shall create a Media Task Force to advise on HTML media-related features. **
> 
> If we create this Task Force, any HTML WG member will be free to participate.  Any interested members of the Web and TV IG must join the HTML WG first before being permitted to join this TF.  The Chairs of the HTML WG will appoint facilitators. The Task  Force will operate according to the principles laid out below:
> 
> HTML WG Media Task Force:
> 1. Any HTML WG member can join the Media Task Force (opt in model).
> 2. Any Web and TV IG [1] member that wants to join the Media TF should first join the HTML WG (see item 1).
> 3. Any member of the Media TF MUST be a member of the HTML WG.    
> 4. The Media TF will use a separate email list for TF discussions (ie public-html-media@w3.org).
> 5. The Media TF may have a separate weekly meeting slot (day and time TBD).
> 6. The Media TF will not make final decisions about its scope, work plan or work products. These decisions will be made by HTML WG.
>      Note: The HTML WG might decide at some future point in time to delegate more responsibility to the Media TF.
> 7. Facilitator(s) of the Media TF will be selected by the HTML WG chairs.
> 8. The Media TF facilitator(s) will report back to the HTML WG on the work of the TF on a regular basis.
> 9. The first task of the Media TF will be to draft its scope and initial work plan.  This scope will include work on the Encrypted Media proposal [2] in order produce a candidate first public Working Draft.
> 
> If you object to this resolution, please indicate your objection by Tuesday April 10 2012. If you object, please give a reason.  If there are no objections by the stated date, this resolution will become a Working Group Decision by unanimous consent.

I'm sure it's clear that we support this, but I'd like to provide a quick summary as to the primary reasons why.

The Encrypted Media proposal should be viewed as an alternative to <object> and proprietary plugins for providing commercial video services on web-capable devices. This alternative is of value because:
(a) not all plugins work on all web-capable devices, or ever will
(b) not all web-capable devices support plug-ins at all, or ever will
(c) it is economically more efficient for us and the industry to reduce fragmentation in the presentation environment space and focus on HTML

Our experience indicates that any viable approach to this must enable the use of commercial content protection systems (for example PlayReady, Widevine, Marlin etc.)

We understand and support the objective of W3C that as much functionality as possible on the web should be implementable using RF, open source technologies. We believe a transition from the use of closed proprietary plugins to the use of HTML <video> with encrypted media extensions is a step in that direction and so compatible with this goal.

Finally, it's our goal that these capabilities be available on as wide a variety of devices/UAs as possible, so that our service can be available on as many devices/UAs as possible (because this is what people tell us they want). We think this goal will be easier to achieve if this work is done here, in the HTML Working Group (or Task Force thereof), where many UA vendors are represented.

…Mark




> 
> /paulc
> HTML WG co-chair
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/  
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0273.html
> 
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 16 April 2012 16:36:25 UTC