- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 15:38:30 -0400
- To: Nikos Roussos <comzeradd@mozilla-community.org>
- CC: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 7/8/2013 3:23 PM, Nikos Roussos wrote: > On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 13:00 -0400, Jeff Jaffe wrote: >> On 7/6/2013 5:59 AM, Duncan Bayne wrote: >>>> Exactly. That's why finding better alternatives is not a valid argument. >>>> The debate here is not about DRM being bad or good. The debate is >>>> whether this should be a W3C standard or not. >>> And, from what we've been told, that was never debated at all, and won't >>> be. >>> >> I'm not sure what you mean when you say that it won't be debated whether >> this should be a W3C standard or not. This mailing list houses a fairly >> substantial debate: both about whether content protection should be in >> scope and also whether EME is an acceptable solution for that scope. > I'm glad that this debate is still open. Thank for clarifying this. I > think many people on this list think that W3C has already decided that > content protection is in scope of W3C. Hmm. Maybe I mis-communicated. There was a decision that content protection is in scope for the HTML Working Group. The work is continuing in the WG based on that decision. I didn't mean to communicate otherwise. On the other hand, as I've said otherwise, it has not been decided that EME is an acceptable solution. What I meant to say (in terms of content protection being debated) is that the entire W3C community: W3C Staff, Members, and the general public continue to debate the issues herein. Although the WG is proceeding with the current decision, we also believe that the debate is informative and can potentially lead to new insights. > > >
Received on Monday, 8 July 2013 19:38:39 UTC