- From: Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:14:25 +0200
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 2013/10/22 16:41, Mark Watson wrote: > Sent from my iPhone > > On Oct 22, 2013, at 3:28 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com> > wrote: > >> On 2013/10/22 04:30, Duncan Bayne wrote: >> [...] >>>> Continuing to state that it is "inimical to the W3Cs mission & >>>> goals" >>>> repeatedly doesn't seem to be changing the answer any. Do you have >>>> anything new to add, or will you just continue proving to us that >>>> you >>>> like writing "inimical"? >> >> >> JF, I don't understand why such a remark. Some of us learned a new >> word. >> >> (on a side note, it's really too bad your MUA breaks threading (at >> least for me), all your replies appear to me as new threads. Imagine >> the deception this morning). >> >> >> [...] >>> Re. this thread, I was trying to make the point that, for the >>> purposes >>> of deciding whether to treat DRM as in-scope, it doesn't matter >>> whether >>> or not the movie industry wants it or not. >> >> >> This exactly. Though this has been said over and over (and over) >> again... .. sometimes with better wording than others. Too many times >> the conversation gets steered off topic. Piracy and business models, >> those shouldn't be the concern in this place. >> >> >> A problem is that some EME proponents don't want to acknowledge the >> issue with a possible degradation of the W3C's credibility. It's >> almost 'the' issue, yet many proponents on this list dismiss it >> entirely. This is part of why the discussion goes nowhere, credibility >> is at stake and it's not a non-issue as some may pretend it is. > > I've addressed it a few times. Perhaps I need to be more direct. > > If you believe that the purpose of the W3C is to act as a campaigning > champion for a web _exclusively_ based on copyleft and Free Software > principles, then yes, working on EME would be inimical to that goal. To me, this feels like a reply to something I did not write or at least thought I didn't write. I've noticed that this happens quite often, the discussion is impossible because it's not really a discussion. Sorry for whatever part of that is my fault. [...] I cut out everything irrelevant to the discussion. That said, the thing with Object and EME is an interesting point that's been raised by both sides here, perhaps if we are able to stay on topic for once, a thread about "EME and Object" could really be helpful. >> Maybe another way to look at the question: >> If EME within the W3C creates a divided web, would it be worth it ? > > What division does EME "create" ? That is, what division does not > exist today that would exist if EME is approved by W3C ? EME does not create a division. That isn't what I wrote, again sorry for whatever part of that is my fault. I wrote: EME *within* the W3C. I also wrote *IF*. The question is, *IF* EME *within* the W3C creates a divide, would it [EME] still be worth it [having in the W3C specification] ? The idea behind this question is that perhaps at some point, whatever happens with EME, the outcome might possibly lead to a division. (in case this isn't clear, I'm writing "might" and not "will"). For example, if EME/DRM is rejected from the W3C, those that require DRM for their businesses will probably find another way, it can either be contained by the web (like Flash) or not. If EME does become part of W3C's spec, then we'd have a similar situation the other way around, the effect could range from a simple "W3C valid GPL rainbow unicorn edition" to a complete W3C fork. On one hand certain businesses that don't want to live without DRM will probably not let go because it's not in the W3C's spec. On the other hand, there are institutions and even individuals who design web pages and do their best to make sure anyone can view their content, regardless of the visitors web browser, operating system or hardware*. For those institutions, they may require at least a fork of the validator to ensure true platform agnostic compatibility of their websites. -------------------- * Because this *will* be misinterpreted as it has in the past, by this I mean: the browser would of course need to be able to interpret the W3C's spec, the hardware will need to support the functionality deployed by the website, but the user will not have to use *specific* hardware (with built-in CDM) nor use a specific piece of software (CDM) nor use a specific operating system (that supports the hardware and or software required to make use of the CDM and/or has it's own built-in CDM). In other words, anyone should be able/allowed to build their systems on their own, be it open or closed, it shouldn't be because of this that they may be excluded from parts of the web. -------------------- Maybe this was a naive attempt on my behalf to try think about this from another angle. -- Emmanuel Revah http://manurevah.com
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 10:15:00 UTC