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

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

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:14:30 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ri+Vm-MzGUtZnzv3zsgDG2C1FAmiMw9vGarGpd0ZPpDUf1AQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "<public-html@w3.org>" <public-html@w3.org>
hi Tab,

"This means that our Linux customers are capable of watching video using
Flash to run DRM."

unfortunately the flash plugin on non windows paltforms does not have the
accessibility support [1]

and is unlikely to as I understand that Adobe has recently shelved their
plans to add acc support on Mac and linux.

So from the perspective of users with disabilties something that disengages
video from flash plugin dependency would be a good thing.


[1]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2010/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20100708/flash.html#flash_notes

On 14 March 2012 01:24, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 2012, at 4:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
> wrote:
> >>> On Mar 13, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>> Again, we should not be aiming to restrict the web to only those
> applications based on a purely FOSS stack.
> >>>>
> >>>> That is, in fact, precisely what I and several other important
> >>>> implementors on this list are aiming for.
> >>>
> >>> You can aim for whatever you like. I'm saying W3C should not adopt
> this as its aim because:
> >>> 1) It's impossible - the web is whatever users and the companies they
> patronize decide it is
> >>> 2) It's counterproductive to try and restrict innovation, by
> restricting the available technologies to those decided by a some subset of
> developers
> >>
> >> Non-FOSS technologies can't be implemented by some of the major
> >> browsers that implement HTML.  Nor can they be implemented by some of
> >> the OSes that those browsers want to be able to run on.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>  Anything less than that is
> >>>> insulting to our users that choose to use a purely FOSS stack, which
> >>>> we recognize as a valid and legitimate choice.
> >>>
> >>> Or maybe it's insulting to users to claim that a whole swath of
> services they enjoy today on the web should not be there ?
> >>
> >> That's a different set of users.
> >
> > Ok, so we have to *balance* the needs of different sets of users.
> >
> > When a user chooses to use a purely FOSS stack they *choose* to forego
> those services which require non-FOSS capabilities. We should indeed try to
> maximize the set of services supported by pure FOSS stacks - to make that
> choice as painless as possible. But that is different from saying that
> services which use non-FOSS technologies should not be on the web.
>
> Well, we have a browser which is legally prevented from including
> non-FOSS technology.  It can delegate to royalty-encumbered and/or
> closed-source code, but it can only do so on non-FOSS OSes.
>
>
> >>  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!
>
> Sorry, that doesn't fly.  As a simple example, Flash (a current plugin
> capable of implementing DRM) is ported to Linux (and packaged by
> distros that aren't *strictly* FOSS, like Ubuntu).  This means that
> our Linux customers are capable of watching video using Flash to run
> DRM.
>
> However, based on my current knowledge, there's little interest among
> the companies that produce the CDMs expected to be used in porting
> these CDMs to Linux.  (Linux constitutes a tiny fraction of their
> users, and thus it's not cost-effective to create and maintain a
> port.)  Thus, our Linux customers are *not* capable of watching video
> using those CDMs to run DRM.
>
> This is a consequence of the fact that Flash is a paid-for pain point,
> while royalty-encumbered/closed-source CDMs are a brand new source of
> pain.
>
> ~TJ
>
>


-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 17:15:31 UTC

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