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

RE: Media Source draft proposal

From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:46:24 +0000
To: Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
CC: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Message-ID: <8D8FE6C1B27E6645848ABEC8355A39BD100D30@CH1PRD0310MB391.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
On Thursday, April 19, 2012 7:54 AM, Aaron Colwell wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
> > I agree, adaptive streaming does not need to be tied to "content protection"
> > and creating a task force covering both seems like a bad idea. They are both
> > related to HTMLMediaElement, but so are a lot of other features that would
> > presumably not be included. Opera is interested in adaptive streaming and
> > would not like to see it mixed up with the more controversial issues.
>
> I agree that the Media Source & Encrypted Media proposals should not be
> unnecessarily tied together. We have intentionally kept them separate because
> we, at Google, believe that some constituencies interested in one proposal may
> not want to participate in developing the other. We also recognize that there
> are people interested in supporting both proposals and ensuring that they
> properly interoperate with each other. We believe that considering these
> proposals in the same forum would make it easier for the two proposal
> development groups to coordinate interoperability efforts. In no way are we
> saying that development of one proposal should be gated by the other. 

I agree with Aaron. At Microsoft, we also think many of the same people with
important experience of media scenarios will have useful contributions to both
proposals. For this reason, we think considering the proposals in the same forum
makes it easier.

It is also important that people who want to work on some things and not others
are able to do so. The Accessibility Task Force uses sub-teams to help towards
this goal. I'm sure there are other options. The Task Force would identify this
during its scoping and organising phase and the proposed framing of the task
force states that the Working Group ultimately owns that decision.


On Tuesday, April 17, 2012 10:56 PM, Vickers, Mark wrote:
> We believe the best initial work plan needs to be broad enough to include
> not only refining the current Encrypted Media proposal, but also investigate
> other alternative architectures. In particular, there have been several
> legitimate concerns raised about the Encrypted Media proposal. The Media Task
> Force should look at both (a) improving the submitted proposal and
> (b) inviting alternate proposals for handling encrypted media.

We have made two proposals for media-related extension specifications. They are
just that. Proposals. We see support from a number of organisations for
progressing this work and we believe we've presented a good starting point but
of course anyone who wants to can and should make alternate proposals. That's
how we end up with the best solutions in the end. I agree with Mark that the
Task Force should be open to alternate proposals.

Cheers,

Adrian.
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2012 15:48:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:48 GMT