RE: W3C HTML Fork without Digital Restriction Management

We need to defend the *contemporary* web, not be seen to be forking it.  The EME proponents, and Tim and the W3C are attempting to redefine the principles of the web as compatible with DRM - I suggest this is one of their goals.  Their redefined principles of the web allow mis-features and in conjunction with laws this could constrain every 'fork' with the threat of persecution.   Promoting a 'fork' of the web might damage the defense of the contemporary web, so think it through, and consider advertising your 'fork' as consistent with the 'contemporary' web on the matter of mis-features.

cheers
Fred

> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 23:07:18 +0100
> From: az@zankapfel.org
> To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> Subject: W3C HTML Fork without Digital Restriction Management
> 
> Hi,
> 
> before this group eventually gets closed down...
> 
> The old blahblah: In my opinion, most of the official chairs accept 
> Digital Restriction Management as a necessary evil, that can bring good 
> to many "artists" Completely understandable from the Viewpoint, that we 
> already have some binary blobs like Flash which are a not so optimal 
> solution in terms of creating and delivering content free of 
> discrimination(like having or not having much money)... but hey never 
> mind, i guess we heard a lot of that already.
> 
> Back to the subject: What about establishing an official "branded" 
> alternative to the W3 that gives a clear message? To let people 
> accessing the web everywhere know, if it is safe - in terms of: one can 
> go to tons of source code - to view something that meets certain 
> requirements, because there is no 
> confidential/restricted/proprietary/potentiallyevil Code involved?
> 
> For example an alternative DOCTYPE and namespace which is based upon the 
> works of the W3C until the political / non-political decision to accept 
> digital restriction management, as a topic to be worked upon, from the 
> chairs was made?
> 
> Or in programmers terms: a fork? (maybe with some later added specs from 
> the W3C)
> 
> With this, you can easily seperate the good, bad and hopefully the ugly 
> :) as well by viewing the topmost part of a document. So the chairs that 
> support restrictions can have their way and the public, concerned about 
> that, can have their way in a clean labelled fashion.
> 
> Maybe this can direct some of the attention away from some of the 
> discussions here, which are politically absolutely important, but 
> somehow not very promising and enlightening. That attention could be 
> well used to establish a nice alternative W3C fork :) thus creating 
> something, which is my personally preferred way to deal with such 
> situations.
> 
> cheers
> markus demmel
> 
>