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

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

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:22:51 -0700
Message-ID: <4F5FF2EB.90007@jumis.com>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "<public-html@w3.org>" <public-html@w3.org>
On 3/13/12 6:12 PM, Mark Watson wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2012, at 4:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>>   The existing
>> non-FOSS stuff that's more-or-less required in the web stack is a pain
>> we've already accepted and paid for.  It would be nice to avoid adding
>> *more* of it.
> We could argue about that, but that's not the point. This proposal *reduces* the amount of non-FOSS stuff: instead of huge plug-ins supporting who-knows-what, duplicative of HTML, we're trying to draw a line around the minimal part that, for better or worse, currently has to be non-FOSS. And while we do it we can enable independent evolution of those parts, in the directions that you and others are advocating. If you're objective is to have maximal use of FOSS capabilities, you should be *in favor* of this proposal!

Mark, you and Tab have opposing beliefs here. It's not an issue of 
clarification. It is not a resolvable conflict in this forum at this time.

There are some issues that Henri wanted clarified. I don't think it's 
helping to "explain" your position further to Tab; I'm sure he 
understands your position. I hope you respect his.

I did bring up a set of CDM methods and asked whether or not they would 
pass muster amongst members as being RF/ok with the PP. I was told that 
such issues will be addressed later in the draft process. And so, I'm 
standing by for more information from the TF.

I will formalize the proposals I made on the list to include AES, ChaCha 
and WebSockets masking as baseline mechanisms and post them to the TF 
and/or WebApps in the future.

While I would've liked some direct responses to Henri's recent 
questions, I don't think we're going to make further progress on HTMLWG 
on this issue.

I'm asking that we table the discussion for the time being. And if it 
must flair up again, let's do it on public-webapps, a media based list, 
or otherwise as part of the new TF.

If anyone wants to catch up on the philosophical debate, it's still 
raging on:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/03/13/2027215/mozilla-debates-supporting-h264-in-firefox-via-system-codecs

No need to keep airing it out on this list.

-Charles
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 01:23:16 UTC

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