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

Re: W3C FAQ on DRM and HTML5 ?!

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 11:52:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJQvAucmuoiA9uZWFMHM1Ni01+=Q0iPX9qcg=Kpi8wXYsgW_sg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 1:53 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:
>> > So, we are definitively interested in the space,
>> > independently of whether the HTML Working Group is interested in
>> > developing a solution or whether it is done in a separate group.
>> > Whatever we choose, we will do our best to get the right balance between
>> > producers and consumers.
>>
>> Does the W3C intend solutions acceptable to the W3C in this space to
>> be Royalty-Free per the W3C Patent Policy
>> 1) for the parts that are specced at the W3C
>> 2) for the entirety of the solution that user agents would need to
>> implement in order to interoperate even if parts of the solution rely
>> on things not specified at the W3C?
>
> IMO, part 2 above is an absurd question, since the W3C does not build user
> agents and does not control what goes into a user agent.

It's not an absurd question, because the W3C could fully define a DRM
system (possibly including parts by reference from specs created
elsewhere) and further specify it in a way that doesn't leave
extension points for other DRM systems.

Features get specced like this all the time. For example, innerHTML
runs a particular serialization algorithm upon getting and there's no
extensions point to plug "other serializers" that are "out of scope"
into it.

> If you want to be
> serious about this question, then first you must precisely define what is in
> scope in the phrase "to interoperate".

I mean the capability to successfully render Web sites (including
video and audio) that use the feature to "protect" their video and
audio.

> In the discussion at hand, I would
> expect the CDM interface and a Clearkey CDM to be in scope (since they are
> proposed to be specified by the W3C) and other CDMs to be out of scope
> (since they would not be specified by the W3C).

Basically what I'm asking is whether the W3C management intends to
make the Web-facing behaviors of all CDMs specified at the W3C
(possibly by reference to other RF specs and possibly "all CDMs"
meaning one CDM). The W3C could decide not to have extensions points
for "other CDMs".

> However, I guess that you
> consider CDMs not defined by the W3C to be in scope, at least as far as the
> W3C is concerned. That's sort of like asking whether specific uses of XML
> are in scope for RF implementation since W3C defines XML as RF technology.

It's like asking if the W3C intends to specify all XML vocabularies,
yes. The W3C's answer for the set of vocabularies supported by XML and
the set of CDMs supported by HTML media does not need to be the same a
priori. Or it's like asking if the W3C intends there to be pluggable
vocabularies in XML or if it intends there to be one vocabulary.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 09:52:34 GMT

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