- From: Markus Demmel <az@zankapfel.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:46:09 +0100
- To: "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
On 15.01.2014 16:58, Jeff Jaffe wrote: > > On 1/15/2014 10:43 AM, Olivier Thereaux wrote: > > Accordingly, a subset of the OWP which removes EME would more > accurately be characterized as a "profile" of the OWP, rather than a > fork of the OWP. You're absolutely right. I meant a profile. And with a good platform to support it. Thinking from a user point of view: Seeing a W3C logo means, there is the potential risk of executing proprietary code & Seeing a "placeholder for W3C without EME, etc..." logo means, that every piece of code is open in Terms of FOSS > >> >> A fork of the web platform means a world of interoperability issues. >> Think: browser wars. It is hard to see how that can be a better >> option than an interoperable web platform which includes unpleasant >> features or badly designed components. >> >> Interoperability, not purity is the main objective of an open >> standard. A fork should always, always be the worst case scenario. never wann go there again, but i consider my proposition to be an subset of the official web platform, not an replacement. Sorry for the misunderstanding, that may have been caused by my inprecise wording. >> >> Thanks, >> — >> Olivier >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> http://www.bbc.co.uk >> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and >> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless >> specifically stated. >> If you have received it in >> error, please delete it from your system. >> Do not use, copy or disclose the >> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender >> immediately. >> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails >> sent or received. >> Further communication will signify your consent to >> this. >> ----------------------------- >> >
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 19:46:34 UTC