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: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 00:05:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+fwHLJ4o-4=_4m9Z343sa88pa9Ek5zE=nKcY-0AXa8crQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mar 5, 2012 7:41 PM, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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?
> >
> >
> > No.
>
> All right, just checking. Your wording simply seemed odd to me.
>
> > Are you under the mistaken impression that a minority of browser
> implementors can dictate what the market needs or can use?
>
> The browser vendors do indeed get to "dictate" what web technologies the
> market can use, since they're the ones implementing those techs.
>
Browser vendors are not privileged as a market entity. They respond to the
market as they choose, just as users select browser vendors based on their
ability to meet their needs.

Browser vendors do not speak with the same voice. They represent diverse
interests and goals, and they play into the market as well.

I'm almost certain that a *majority *of browser vendors have an interest in
supporting the needs represented by the proposal being discussed. Since
Google is a co-sponsor of the proposal, I have to assume that the views you
have expressed here are your personal views and are not representative of
your employer's official position.

> (It's statements like these that make me worry when I hear you use wording
> like the above.)
>
And likewise.
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 07:06:08 GMT

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