W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Encrypted Media proposal: Summary of the discussion so far

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:07:52 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+f=rcBD19k3oWiZv1TUtFQOU55ukYocckgg914CbzjAdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html@w3.org
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> > Wrong. Other than Clearkey, individual CDMs are not part of what is
> > specified in the proposal.
>
> And, *once again*, the fact that the CDMs that will *actually be used*
> aren't specified in the spec means the spec is incomplete.  If this
> spec moves forward, I will formally object to this lack as well,
> because it is not possible to implement the spec in practice without
> the CDMs that will actually be used.


You can FO to whatever you like, but you are wrong in claiming that "the
spec is incomplete" merely because some CDM instance that is expected to be
used is not specified by the proposal or by W3C.

That is equivalent to FOing to canvas.getContext("x-my-context") because
x-my-context is not defined by the W3C and is expected to be used. A rather
absurd proposition, but that is exactly what you are doing.
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 22:08:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:47 GMT