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

Re: Encrypted Media proposal: Summary of the discussion so far

From: Christian Kaiser <kaiserc@google.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 17:39:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CACinLHUnAR0ij5H6=JT61r++MuzqaacUDO37VTFw4UNrxApEYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
Cc: "<public-html@w3.org>" <public-html@w3.org>
Andreas,

On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 00:41, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de> wrote:

> On 04.03.2012 02:54, Christian Kaiser wrote:
> > To illustrate, let's assume
> > - browser/device B1 supports CDMs A and B,
> > - browser/device B2 supports CDM A,
> > - browser/device B3 supports CDMs C and D
> > and
> > - content distributor CD1 supports CDM A and C
> > - content distributor CD2 supports CDM A, B and D
> > In this example, *all* browsers/devices can play content
> > from *all* content distributors even though none of the
> > content distributors support all CDMs, and the
> > browsers/devices do not support a common set of CDMs.
>
> It is noteworthy that this scenario does not include *any* browser which
> does not support *any* of these CDMs but still makes a statement about
> *all" browsers. This scenario is only thinkable in a world in which Open
> Source has been eliminated. Wishful thinking?
>

The statement is qualified with the words "In this example". The example
scenario was intended to highlight the potential improvement in
interoperability.
I thought it was quite obvious that one can still construct a scenario
where some combinations don't interoperate.
If it wasn't so obvious, my apologies.

Christian
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 01:39:45 UTC

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