- From: Nikos Roussos <comzeradd@mozilla-community.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:19:16 +0300
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 19:58 -0700, John Foliot wrote: > Emmanuel Revah wrote: > > Indeed it's not the answer Piranna is looking for, the right answer is > > that EME does not solve the compatibility issue. It does not solve the > > "Flash" or "Silverlight" problem. It only creates more mess. > > > > CDMs are plugins/addons. For the browser, that is what they are, a > > plugin that can talk to HQ and control the user's browser. > > Feel free to keep believing the same hyperbole. As someone recently said, [... blah blah blah blah blah...] Could you elaborate? How a EME/CDM future is better than what's happening today with flash and silverlight? > > However, this still means that many systems will be excluded from the > > Open Web, even if users of these are willing to accept non-free > > controling software on their systems. > > Please, name those systems. I keep hearing this, and keep wondering which OSes, outside of Linux, are going to have an issue here? And even with Linux, the issue is not technical, its philosophical. Standards aren't philosophies, their standards. You could also say the same about W3C's mission :) On the technological aspect, if a Standard can't be implemented in Free Software then it's not *Open* Standard and thus can't be considered part of the Open Web.
Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 07:19:41 UTC