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

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

From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 17:04:01 +0000
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: "<public-html@w3.org>" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E6327389-C9FA-4B04-B08B-3B0B18FB9AFE@netflix.com>


Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 5, 2012, at 1:09 AM, "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
>> When a customer chooses between a new TV with a Netflix badge and one without they don't expect to be able to watch Netflix on the one without the badge.
> 
> The concept that the end user has to look for a badge that says a
> given browser (potentially embedded in a device) is compatible with a
> particular site is antithetical to the purpose of standards as an
> enabler of interoperability.

I was talking about customer expectations in respect of TV products available today.

The idea of a common baseline set of client functions (the 'web platform') that support a huge range of services is an excellent thing.

The idea that there should be no services on the Internet that require additional client capabilities is appaling. That you should expect to constrain innovation by means of the client platform you define is so absurd that I doubt it is what you really mean.

Furthermore, innovation is facilitated by making it possible to build hybrid services that use both standard web platform and other capabilities together. Indeed this is what Netflix did.

I truly hope there will always be new and innovative services which use capabilities not yet part of the web platform. Yes, inventors of those services need to be clear with customers that you need a device/browser with a particular capability to use the service - or more simply ensure that the device/browser is branded as wizzo-service-capable.

Over time, I expect the capabilities on which popular services are based to be brought into the web platform in order to level the device/browser playing field.

We have some particular technical and commercial issues to address in this case - in particular in respect of Open Source - but that is not a reason to say these services should be excluded from the platform.

...Mark


> 
> The outcome of standardization should be that any browser that
> implements the standards works with any Web site. I think the W3C
> shouldn't develop specs to enable scenarios that involve N browsers
> having badges claiming compatibility with M sites.
> 
> -- 
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@iki.fi
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
> 
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 17:04:35 GMT

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