Re: Encrypted Media proposal (was RE: ISSUE-179: av_param - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals)

On Mar 6, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> 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.

That's very 'open' of you. Don't you think that should change as the web gets onto more devices ?

>  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 19:57:15 UTC