W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Encrypted Media proposal (was RE: ISSUE-179: av_param - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals)

From: Marie-José Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 06:56:29 -0500
Message-Id: <674D470E-0339-49C2-92D9-4EA422F1C1E3@mit.edu>
Cc: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>, Muriel Medard <medard@MIT.EDU>, Frank Fitzek <ff@es.aau.dk>, Dirk Trossen <dirk.trossen@cl.cam.ac.uk>, Sheau Ng <Sheau.Ng@nbcuni.com>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
In the mean time our research that I presented last year has progressed and we can now prevent viewing of non allowed content in a distributed viewing experience. We are now adding content signatures to also validate the content itself. While this is all work in progress and pre-standardization we are targeting some browser plug-in of some sort. I will review this proposal and make sure our work is at least compatible.

/mjm

Marie-José Montpetit
mariejo@mit.edu

On Feb 21, 2012, at 9:59 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:

> All,
> 
> Please see the proposal below, which supersedes the previous Netflix proposal on Content Protection in HTML.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark Watson
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
>> Date: February 21, 2012 3:16:42 PM PST
>> To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>
>> Cc: David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
>> Subject: Encrypted Media proposal (was RE: ISSUE-179: av_param - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals)
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> We have been collaborating on an API to enable encrypted media in HTML that we think
>> can be implemented in all browsers and support any container/codec and content
>> encryption solution without making major changes to the HTML Media element
>> specification. We think it solves most use cases without being overly large or
>> complex.
>> 
>> We'd like to get people's feedback on the proposal. It is posted here:
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html
>> 
>> Many content providers and application developers have said they can't use <audio>
>> and <video> because HTML lacks robust content protection. Without this functionality,
>> they cannot move their apps to the web platform. Many consumer electronics are taking
>> advantage of HTML for both video playback and user interfaces, yet their content
>> protection solutions are typically tied to the device. We believe that working
>> towards a common solution will reduce fragmentation between all HTML platforms.
>> 
>> This has been raised in the Web & TV Interest Group [1] and mentioned in their
>> feedback [2]. We believe this extension specification supports the counter proposal [3]
>> for ISSUE-179 [4]. It demonstrates how to provide additional functionality to the
>> HTML5 media element without requiring a generic mechanism like <param>.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> David Dorwin, Google
>> Adrian Bateman, Microsoft
>> Mark Watson, Netflix
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF#Content_Protection
>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Dec/0120.html
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/issue-179_no_change
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/179
>> 
>> On Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:40 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> '{audio,video} require param child (or equivalent)'
>>> The current status for this issue:
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/179
>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-179
>>> 
>>> So far, we two one Change Proposals submitted:
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/av_param
>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/issue-179_no_change
>>> 
>>> At this time the Chairs would also like to solicit additional Change
>>> Proposals, in case anyone would like to advocate the status quo or a
>>> different change than the specific ones in the existing Change Proposals..
>>> 
>>> If no counter-proposals or alternate proposals are received by February 11th,
>>> 2012, we proceed to evaluate the change proposals that we have received to
>>> date.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Maciej
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 11:57:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:44:06 UTC