- From: John Sullivan <johns@fsf.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:02:53 -0500
- To: "John Foliot" <john@foliot.ca>
- Cc: "'Duncan Bayne'" <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>, <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
"John Foliot" <john@foliot.ca> writes: > If you can explain, in succinct terms, how work on EME being driven away > from the W3C will benefit anyone, please do explain. Yours is a battle that > is simply not worth fighting here, because the W3C cannot mandate a browser > manufacturer or a content owner to do a single darned thing. With or without > W3C "sanctioning", this technology will continue to exist, and that is no > strawman argument, that is a cold hard fact. Well, your question leaves me wondering why the people working on EME want it to be done through the W3C. If they can do it anyway, why do they want to do it here? The answers to that question probably have a lot to do with why different people *don't* want it done through the W3C, even though it might in some other form be done elsewhere. -john -- John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: 61A0963B | http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at <http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=8096>.
Received on Friday, 22 November 2013 22:03:26 UTC