- From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:47:43 +0000
- To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "<public-html@w3.org>" <public-html@w3.org>
On Feb 28, 2012, at 5:41 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > > On Feb 28, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: > >>> It's when you're trying to prevent the user from getting to the >>> content that it stops making any kind of sense. >> >> Yes, I understand this does not make any sense to you. But it does to others. It's a pre-requisite for services like Netflix to use HTML5 instead of plugins. This list is not the place to argue the ethics of that. W3C needs to decide whether to work on making that a possibility, or whether HTML5 is simply not going to be a suitable technology for our segment of the industry, which would be a shame. >> >> ...Mark > > > Dramatic a little there, Mark. Maybe a little, but I think what I said is probably true. > > $20k of work on WebKit would get you what you want. And you don't even have to spend it-- looks like there's enough industry support that someone else will. > > WebKit prefixed attributes and APIs are very common. If all we needed were proprietary extensions to WebKit then indeed we could do that ourselves and we would not have brought the proposal to W3C at all. Please remember that there are many more implementations of the web platform than the desktop browsers: we are especially concerned with TVs, Set Top Boxes, Blu-ray players and other CE devices. There is a real danger that a variety of standards bodies around the world define their own modifications to HTML for these features. Such fragmentation is in no-ones interest and so we would very much prefer to see W3C addressing this. ...Mark > > The only real battle here is whether you can get Firefox onboard (Robert and Boris). > > -Charles
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 03:48:38 UTC