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

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

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 05:25:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+d6hRjNqNBDx3z0vFP7_t+NTnT+km-yfwrFTYf1==h82Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com> wrote:

> Glenn Adams writes:
>
> > No SmartTV that I'm aware of is close to full HTML5 support; however,
> > support for A/V playback via <object/> plus browser supplied (builtin)
> > plugins or via <video/>/<audio/> (support for which is being added
> > gradually).
> >
> > I'm not sure what is meant by "what the web considers HTML5" but in
> > general, (current generation) SmartTVs do not try to support browsing
> > the web at large. Rather, they support specific walled garden content
> > that has been specifically tested against the device.
>
> In that case, why is what they do relevant to this working group?
>
> If they define their own behaviour, not HTML as a whole, and only need
> to work with walled gardens then why should their requirements have an
> affect on the WWW?
>

(1) I am describing current behavior above for TV devices, however, there
is a desire to support full HTML5 behavior to the extent that is possible
on such devices;

(2) a common solution for commercial video services must satisfy delivery
of such services to multiple classes of devices, desktop, televisions,
set-top boxes, handheld phones etc

(3) these issues are relevant to this WG because these service providers
and their end users are both customers and members of this WG;
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 12:26:00 UTC

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