Re: Requirements [Re: Watermarking]

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Alastair Campbell <alastc@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014, at 09:18 AM, Mark Watson wrote:
>> > I'm confused about why you think I should provide requirements for a
>> > problem that I have not proposed we address,
>>
>
>  Duncan Bayne replied (in part):
>
>> Wouldn't you try to back up a step, and determine what the actual
>> requirements were that were driving those parties to demand mutually
>> incompatible features?
>>
>
> I agree that, in the wider context of the HTML WG having content
> protection in scope, getting the source requirements is useful and
> necessary.
>
> The EME spec bypasses the need for understanding those requirements by
> fitting with current models, so I can understand Mark's lack of interest.
>

It's not so much a lack of interest as:
(1) I do not have the information requested in a form that I could publish
and don't see any realistic way I could get it
(2) I think designing a new solution from those requirements in a public
forum is very unlikely to be successful - for various reasons, not least IP
- and I try not to invest effort in doomed projects

...Mark



> However, if the WG's scope really is content protection in general and
> other solutions arepossible, I hope Jeff makes some headway in finding
> someone to talk to.
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>