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: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 11:24:32 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDB5thyYRhdcMU0UPDbLK+VihZCJ_LoezqFthPh66XN4fw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Cc: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2012, at 10:09 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The browser vendors do indeed get to "dictate" what web technologies the
>> market can use, since they're the ones implementing those techs.
>
> Assuming you count Chrome and Safari as 2, even though they both use WebKit,
> you should remember that there are many more implementations than just the
> desktop browsers. WebKit-based implementations exist on 100s of CE devices.
> Most if not all CE device vendors are deploying web implementations. There
> are many on mobile phones. There is ChromeOS and GoogleTV also.
>
> I'd be willing to bet that if you asked all the 'implementors' there would
> be a substantial majority in favour of this proposal.

For the parts of this that might go into WebKit proper, practically
speaking only the Apple and Google ports matter for determining what
gets in.  The various minority devices/vendors that use WebKit aren't
usually a significant voice in the community.  Of course, significant
bits of this proposal would end up in the browser-specific code, not
WebKit, so it doesn't much matter.


> Amongst the desktop browser vendors, Microsoft and Google are clearly in
> favour - since their names are on the proposal. The one comment from Apple
> was positive.
>
> This is absolutely not to say that the implementation concerns raised don't
> need to be addressed, but we are right at the beginning of this process,
> with only the very first draft on the table. We'll be able to work those
> things out.
>
> Having said all that, whilst implementation experience is vital to good
> specifications - and so implementors do influence the specification more
> than non-implementors - W3C needs to pay attention to its members when
> setting scope and policy.

Non-implementing members can be useful as a source of information or
inspiration, but they have no ability to force implementors to do
anything.  Nor does the W3C itself.  It's an umbrella that we all come
together under, not a legislative body.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 19:25:20 UTC

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