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 16:49:00 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+cz1PiNN-4yasyoCb8mdWFXj+LtbGmU=T1eY4DVLxOhGA@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 4:26 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> > 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.
>
> If we were newly speccing canvas and expected an "x-my-content"
> context to be used, the spec *would* be incomplete without it.  I'm
> not sure why you think this is absurd.
>

Not by my definition of layered specifications. You seem to be articulating
a notion of an all-encompassing specification only published by the W3C.
Given that the real world is based on layered specifications defined by
different organizations using different IPR policies, I find the notion
that everything under the sun should be included in a W3C specification to
be absurd.


> Such a context wouldn't necessarily have to be described in the *same
> spec*, of course.  It could be in some other spec, even some other
> standards body, as long as it had good qualities (namely, being
> royalty-free and implementable in open-source without licenses).  This
> is precisely the situation with the "webgl" context.
>

Since the majority of other standards bodies do not employ RF and FOSS
policies, then you are effectively making an argument that all other
standards bodies should change their policies based on  your notion of
"good qualities". I find that an absurd argument due to its ideological
purism.


> So, I don't know how you think that this analogy with <canvas> is
> helping you at all.  The CDM situation is clearly materially different
> in important ways.


I don't agree. Both canvas.getContext() and media.generateKeyRequest() are
based on the notion of an architectural and specification layering between
the canvas and context implementation and between the media and CDM
implementation, respectively.

Personally, I would support the proposed "friendly" amendment of inserting
an additional context object, e.g.,

media.getKeyContext(*keyContextName*)

and then define a W3C specified keyContextName/keyContext pair that is
based on the current EME proposal [1].
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 22:49:50 GMT

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