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

Re: CfC: Create Media Task Force

From: Vickers, Mark <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:43:14 +0000
Message-ID: <DCA40367-D8A6-4FA1-B95F-DF1FBEFEC209@cable.comcast.com>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Cc: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Paul Cotton <paul.cotton@microsoft.com>, "<public-html@w3.org> (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>
On Apr 20, 2012, at 4:42 PM, Mark Watson wrote:
> One approach would be to encourage the DRM vendors to publish their existing APIs. Another would be to work together on a common API which is sufficient to hook up a DRM component to the proposed HTML5 extensions and get multiple DRM vendors to expose that API. This second API would likely be simpler than the existing vendor-specific APIs. And it would be simpler to see how to connect it to the HTML5 extensions. At Netflix we have such an API which we use for integration with a wide variety of systems. I will see if we can publish that.

Just for clarification, I've been assuming that a CDM external to a browser could not only be a DRM, but could also be an interface to embedded security, in which case this would be more of an OS API than an add-on software API. Is that the authors' intent?

A benefit of embedded systems is that they can be equally available to any web browser on that OS, with no third-party software coordination. It does mean that an external CDM abstraction API would need to account for more than DRMs.

> The only thing I am unsure about is how much of the above could/should be done in a W3C context and how much is about companies working together outside W3C ?


Agree this is unclear, particularly if this gets into the OS API domain.

Thanks,
mav
Received on Saturday, 21 April 2012 16:43:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:31 UTC