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: Vickers, Mark <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:59:44 +0000
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
CC: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>, "<public-html@w3.org>" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5F7A2B1A-65D0-4E5B-9A4E-AB58E1228CBD@cable.comcast.com>
On Feb 27, 2012, at 4:58 PM, Mark Watson wrote:

> 
> On Feb 27, 2012, at 4:47 PM, Kornel Lesiński wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:45:41 -0000, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I mean that browser integration with a CDM is easier than browser integration with a full-fledged plugin, because the functionality of the CDM is so much more constrained.
>> 
>> Will there be a specified, interoperable CDM communication interface that browsers can implement?
> 
> IMO, there could be if people would like there to be. On the other hand there is no such standardized API for plugins or media codecs.

I think this would be very useful to define a standard API that could be used with both software and hardware key systems. This is a much more narrow, well-defined interface than the all-purpose plug-in APIs. The interface to an external key system could be defined in a way that it would be useful for other browser purposes than media.

It would make sense to do this either in the W3C or as a joint project with another group in order to keep the efforts functionally aligned.

> 
>> 
>> Current proposal defines how JS communicates with a browser, but IMHO has only very vague top-level overview how browser might communicate with a CDM.
>> 
>> -- 
>> regards, Kornel Lesiński
>> 
>> 
> 

Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 02:00:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:46 GMT