Re: webtv-ISSUE-63: Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) Testing [testing]

This assumes the CDM is involved in video presentation, yes? Since nothing
about EME indicates whether a CDM performs presentation processing, I'm
wondering if this is a legitimate test of the spec?

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Ng, Sheau (NBCUniversal) <
Sheau.Ng@nbcuni.com> wrote:

>  From this morning's discussion, I modified the text to make things
> clearer to me.
>
>  3. *Graphic* transformations: 1 CDM, 1 browser, 1 stream
> This would be a test of whether a CDM correctly transforms the video given
> a variety of HTML and CSS transformations, such as scaling, rotation and
> occlusion. *The CDM would access its assigned "surface" that is
> undergoing (independent) graphic transformation by the browser, while
> maintaing the intended autonomy by the CDM.* This could be tested on both
> clear-key and non clear-key CDMs.
>
>
>
>  ----
> Sheau Ng | NBCUniversal | P: +1.609.759.0819
>
>
>
>
>
>  On 4/3/13 3:42 PM, "HU, BIN" <bh526r@att.com> wrote:
>
>  Of course, it is ok with me.
>
>  In fact, during the conference call this morning, both of us have been
> assigned an action item to work on this.
>
>  Thanks
> Bin
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Vickers, Mark [mailto:Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com<Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>]
>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:11 PM
> To: Giuseppe Pascale
> Cc: Web and TV Interest Group
> Subject: Re: webtv-ISSUE-63: Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) Testing
> [testing]
>
>
>  On Apr 3, 2013, at 5:35 AM, Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote:
>
>  we can probably discuss them here as well as share the outcome with the
> Media TF once we are done.
>
> Agree.
>
>   Maybe we could integrate these comments into issue-63 (and then discuss
> them?)
>  Mark/Bin what do you think?
>
> OK with me, if OK with Bin.
>
>   /g
>  On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 04:59:22 +0200, Vickers, Mark <
> Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know if this is input for the Web&TV Testing TF or the HTML WG
> Testing TF, but there are a few additional kinds of EME testing that I
> think need to be tested somewhere:
>  1. CDM portability: 1 CDM type, 2 browsers, 1 stream
> This would be a test of whether two browsers using the same type of CDM
> can decode the same encrypted stream. For example, if BrowserA and BrowserB
> both include support for the XYZ CDM, the test would be whether BrowserA
> and BrowserB can both decode and display the same stream that is meant to
> be decoded by the XYZ CDM. This could be tested on both clear-key and non
> clear-key CDMs.
>  2. Common Encryption: 2 CDM types, 2 browsers, 1 stream
> This would be a test of whether two browsers using different types of CDM
> can decode the same encrypted stream. For example, if BrowserA supports XYZ
> CDM and BrowserB supports UVW CDM and if both XYZ and UVW support the same
> common encryption format, the test would be whether BrowserA and BrowserB
> can both decode and display the same stream using two different CDMs. This
> must be tested on two non clear-key CDMs.
>  3. HTML/CSS transformations: 1 CDM, 1 browser, 1 stream
> This would be a test of whether a CDM correctly transforms the video given
> a variety of HTML and CSS transformations, such as scaling, rotation and
> occlusion. This could be tested on both clear-key and non clear-key CDMs.
>  Thanks,
> mav
>  On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:44 PM, Web and TV Interest Group Issue Tracker <
> sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>
> webtv-ISSUE-63: Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) Testing [testing]
>  http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/track/issues/63
>  Raised by: Bin Hu
> On product: testing
>  Provide comprehensive test suite for HTML5 Encrypted Media Extensions
> (EME) specification to enable playback of protected content, and related
> use cases ranging from simple clear key decryption to high value video.
>  Motivation:
>  HTML5 EME extends HTMLMediaElement to allow JavaScript to select content
> protection mechanisms, control license/key exchange, and implement custom
> license management algorithms.
>  It supports a wide range of use cases without requiring client-side
> modifications in each User Agent for each use case. This also enables
> content providers to develop a single and robust application solution for
> all devices (TVs / STBs, smart phones, tablets and PCs etc) supporting a
> range of content decryption and protection technologies.
>  Supporting EME Testing will accelelate the time-to-market of EME-enabled
> device, offer the consumers with EME-enabled video services and provide end
> users with better user experience without dependency on Flash or
> SilverLight.
>  Dependencies:
> User Agent support is required as the JavaScript library needs to be
> extended to support EME.
>  What needs to be standardized:
> User Agent needs to be exposed with EME-enabled JavaScript library.
>
>   --
> Giuseppe Pascale
> Product Manager TV & Connected Devices
> Opera Software
>
>
>
>
>
>