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: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 19:00:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBmSUiOkVq3JWYdVt9b+y=Siqv6hYryo6qhyZ3ph-u=hg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> 2012/3/5 Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
>> Precisely.  We don't need to "burn down the town" (to use your words);
>> we just need to maintain the status quo until copyright owners are
>> willing to come to the table with more reasonable expectations and use
>> the technology we're already providing them.
>
> The reasonableness of content owner expectations is not an issue we can
> determine here. If you wish to go off and create a restrictive W3C
> doppleganger, then feel free to do so. In the mean time, the W3C members
> will choose what makes sense for the majority as opposed to a stentorian
> minority.

I notice that you used the term "W3C members" rather than the more
usual terms "implementors", "UAs", or "browser vendors".  Are you
under the mistaken impression that buying a W3C membership grants the
ability to control what goes into browsers?

Multiple implementors have details numerous problems on multiple
levels of this proposal.  Non-implementor Members have no power to
override the implementors; the last time they attempted to do so, the
implementors ignored them and founded the WHATWG.  Nothing so drastic
would need to be done this time; we can simply ignore the spec if
necessary.  But it would be pretty troublesome for the W3C,
politically, if that were to happen.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 03:01:45 UTC

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