On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 1:17 PM Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote: > How isn't this a gigantic technological retardation? > Florian, I appreciate your concern about the technical impact of DRM features, but this type of hyperbole doesn't help move the conversation forward. We do, indeed, have a programmable API in WebGL. The intent is that WebGL is always available as the escape hatch, to do whatever weird, wonderful thing you want. Nobody is going to take away the ability to render video texture with WebGL, and in fact it should keep getting better over time. As I mentioned previously, a dedicated video layer is both a DRM support mechanism and ease-of-use primitive. In that context it makes sense for us to choose several formats/layouts that we know can be well supported across all platforms and commit to those. We know that if the defaults don't suit your needs you can always fall back to WebGL, but we hope that we can make choices that make life easier for the majority. It should be noted that this puts DRM video at a significant disadvantage. Want your encrypted media to use the latest and greatest packing? Sorry, can't do it unless we can sample texels in WebGL. Want to show the video as something other than a flat screen or sphere? Well, we might have been able to do something about that, but the video was encrypted so... *shrug* That's the reality of DRM: You're giving up flexibility and usability for a sense of false security. As mentioned by others upthread, though, that's a tradeoff that some insist on making. --Brandon
Received on Monday, 10 July 2017 20:39:56 UTC