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 11:26:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDr+zmsdEhNwVpLk9-r6OvRTxWY_32YTakyZrd16AGHkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> 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.

Google does not have an official position on this.  One of our
employees is a co-editor and at least one other has expressed support.
 I and Hixie have expressed dismay.  Similar to Mozilla, we rarely
speak with a corporate voice; we are too large and have too many
interests to reasonably do so.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 19:27:50 GMT

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