RE: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

Nikos Roussos wrote:
> >
> > >> Tell us a better answer.
> > >
> > > No, we won't. Preserving intellectual property is not our fight.
> >
> >
> > Then please tone down the complaints that the best others can do is
> not to your taste.  It's easy to complain; what we need to do is find
> better ways.
> 
> We are not here to discuss personal tastes. If you can't find a better
> way, then you should tone down the effort of standardizing solutions
> that even you don't believe are great.
> 

Mr. Roussos,

I don't know you, don't know who you are, or even why I or others should even care to listen to what you have to say. 

I will tell you one thing however, we are not here to take your verbal abuse either.  

It is clear that some people are angry that the prospect of parts of a DRM system are being worked on by a Working Group of the W3C. Why that is, is not entirely clear to me; the best I have been able to fathom is from Duncan Bayne, who has told us (about 20 times now) that this work is "inimical" to the W3C - although why he believes that, is not 100% clear to me either. I am also curious as to why he cares so much about the W3C's reputation, and less so for the millions of users who want to enjoy Premium Content over the internet.

As well, we are not here to take religion lessons from you or others either, nor are we here for political indoctrination. 

I believe that those in this protracted thread that are not in 100% concurrence with you have heard all of your arguments, repeatedly now, and have not been swayed. Those who may be still open to persuasion have stated, again repeatedly, that *if* a solution that was better in addressing the needs of the content owners were to come forth, that it would be evaluated and contemplated *on its merit*. To date, EME, as part of a larger "solutioning" ecosystem (and worth noting, the W3C has repeatedly said that they are not supporting, nor working on that larger system)... EME has surfaced as an open API that the director of the W3C has ruled in scope. Nothing else has been brought forward to rival or better that solution.

It is clear that you are unhappy with this. It is clear that others are as well. The W3C is not (as far as I can tell however) here to ensure universal happiness, nor meet the demands of each and every user of computers, computing systems, and the internet in general. No serious or sane person expects perfection, and it is becoming apparent that if those who are completely opposed to any form of Content Protection are unwilling to accept some measure of compromise, that you and yours will end up disappointed, angry, frustrated, etc. While I am sure that some will be saddened by that, it will not, I believe, stop the work of the W3C from proceeding.

My suggestion to you (and you are free to take it or ignore it) is to listen to what the Director of the W3C has said (EME is in scope), what the CEO of the W3C has said (bring forth another solution - there is a place for that at the W3C), what professional standards officials have said (Mr. Singer is a senior Standards engineer at Apple), and what run-of-the-mill punters such as myself have said: "Stopping" this will not stand a snowball's chance; the best you can do is provide a better alternative.

If that is not what you are expecting to hear from a standards body, then please sir, do tell us what you expect is going to happen here?

JF

Received on Saturday, 6 July 2013 00:15:09 UTC