- From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 00:06:37 +0000
- To: Clarke Stevens <C.Stevens@CableLabs.com>
- CC: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Hi Clarke, Thanks for making the changes. I still think that ISSUE-179 should be removed from the rows for the Content Protection-related items on the last-but-one page: I don't agree that this is the solution for Content Protection. As discussed on the call, I don't think the argument that because the existing plug-in mechanism (<object>) allows arbitrary parameters to be passed to the plugin then <video> should also allow arbitrary parameters holds any water. These things are completely different: video is (currently) a function fully provided by the browser, whereas plugins are not. Hence there is nowhere to pass these arbitrary parameters to in the <video> case ... today. <object> is a mechanism for arbitrary plugins which might provide any kind of capabilities, not just video, and this also weakens the comparison. What is implied by the ISSUE-179 is introduction of a new plugin architecture that enables dynamic extensions to the <video> element. That may be a good thing, but you have to start by proposing that change, not with a (relatively minor) technical consequence of that change. Regarding Content Protection, this is a capability which the browser may have that should have its own methods for discovery (by Javascript) and key exchange. Whether the capability is provided by the browser, by some hardware component that the browser can connect to, or by a plugin shouldn't affect any content-protection related APIs on the video element. ...Mark On Oct 27, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Clarke Stevens wrote: > I made changes to the slides based on feedback during the meeting and some > emailed comments afterwards. Please let me know of any other suggested > changes. > > Thanks, > -Clarke > > > <W3C MPTF Requirements-v9.ppt>
Received on Friday, 28 October 2011 00:07:10 UTC