Re: W3C HTML Fork without Digital Restriction Management

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> wrote:

> Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
>
> > Since EME is proposed to be a separate "Extension specification",
> > isn't what you are looking for just the existing HTML5 and HTML5.1
> > specifications ?
>
> Something along those lines, yes... endorsing them and explicitly
> requiring not to use EME... with openness for unproblematic future
> extensions.
>
> This is not as trivial as it might seem at first glance, due to the
> need to formulate proper, precise conformance clauses etc, and
> informative text explaining the rationale.
>
> But still the modularity of W3C's approach is making this much, much
> easier than it would otherwise be.
>

FWIW, the modular approach for EME was deliberate, precisely because we
expected that some people may choose not to implement it.

And, again, we are interested in getting a good technical specification
that is interoperably implemented as widely as possible, and not in getting
some kind of political statement from the W3C about DRM. Can we have one
without the other ? Given it's membership, getting such a statement - in
either direction - seems unlikely and is IMO unnecessary.

...Mark



>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>