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

Re: Encrypted Media proposal (was RE: ISSUE-179: av_param - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals)

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:20:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+eDsk60vq4BVyZ3ThX=N4jH23_LQcD9VRFWQeZDDAi9OA@mail.gmail.com>
To: john@netpurgatory.com
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:17 PM, John C. Vernaleo <john@netpurgatory.com>wrote:

>  Which part is baloney?  The part where deaf people get to enjoy
>> Hamlet, or the part where English professors get to critique it?
>>
>>
>> the part where DRM/content protection is equated with intentionally
>> denying access to impaired users
>>
>>
>> the argument ian is making is akin to saying that use of https is
>> intentionally denying access to hackers
>>
>>
>>
> Other than disagreeing with your use of the word hacker, isn't that
> exactly why most people use https?


sorry, wrong analogy on my part, i should have said denying access to
impaired users;

the point is that DRM/CP has nothing to do with content access with respect
to impaired users
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 22:21:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:45 GMT