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: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 05:17:22 +0000
To: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
CC: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Message-ID: <83338BAC-C060-4CDE-882E-3E7ED99575FE@netflix.com>
And people who are on the HTML list, who would like to see this go forward, should voice their support. At present, the comments are mainly negative, but I don't think this is representative of overall opinion.

...Mark

On Feb 22, 2012, at 7:22 AM, Giuseppe Pascale wrote:

> People not on the HTML list can follow the discussion via the public archive:
> http://www.w3.org/mid/6895C7B67488C14AA23F0E079F0D7E8F3848F0@TK5EX14MBXC283.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
> 
> /g
> 
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 03:59:39 +0100, 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<mailto:adrianba@microsoft.com>>
>> Date: February 21, 2012 3:16:42 PM PST
>> To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com<mailto:mjs@apple.com>>, "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org<mailto:public-html@w3.org>)" <public-html@w3.org<mailto:public-html@w3.org>>
>> Cc: David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com<mailto:ddorwin@google.com>>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com<mailto: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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Giuseppe Pascale
> TV & Connected Devices
> Opera Software
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 05:17:51 UTC

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