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: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:06:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+e7Yk=HYVs9JhS-1F6f+Nk=z5Zx89R0CZmTNyt6wuw_CQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>
Cc: "Vickers, Mark" <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>, watsonm@netflix.com, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
2012/2/27 Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>

> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:59:44 -0000, Vickers, Mark <
> Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.**com <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.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.
>>
>
> I agree this needs to be added. Even if I wanted to say that "The current
> proposal is fantastic! Let's do it!" and write patches for Firefox and
> Chrome today, I couldn't — at this point the CDM side is all hypothetical
> and there is no "meat" in the spec to actually implement.


Defining an ABI between browsers and CDM implementations is a reasonable
task, but *not* a task for the W3C.
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 03:07:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:30 UTC