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

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

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 12:17:27 -0800
Message-ID: <4F551F57.4080705@jumis.com>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Christian Kaiser <kaiserc@google.com>, "<public-html@w3.org>" <public-html@w3.org>
On 3/5/2012 11:19 AM, Mark Watson wrote:
>>> >>  Today we have non-RF plugins and codecs. You want to remove support for those ?
>> >  
>> >  Ideally, yes.  Practically, we can't right now.  However, we can work
>> >  toward making them irrelevant, and try out best to ensure that we
>> >  don't introduce any new opportunities for them to take hold.
> So, I think this would be a very bad thing, since these have been venues for innovation in the past and it would be detrimental to progress in general to remove such venues.
>

Is there a technical reason why you can not use <object> to pass the CDM 
information, and the <video> tag to play movie streams today? Is there a 
limitation for supplying video codecs via the <object> tag?

As I've stated, I'd prefer to have a robust means of passing information 
through the media subsystem, and we've sure got a lot of APIs working 
towards those goals; but in the meantime, in the very near meantime, 
will a hybrid solution work for <video>? HTML display has worked for 
audio. I'm assuming that Pandora dropped support of the <audio> tag 
because it was poorly implemented by many vendors; bugs are still 
very-much around.

-Charles
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 20:17:55 UTC

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