W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2013

Re: DRM, EDE, CDM, W3C and the TAG: Is <object classid="[flash]"...> the relevant precedent?

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:57:44 -0400
Message-ID: <1382648264.1926.66.camel@chacal>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Hi Henry,

thank you (and the TAG) for trying to understand the set of issues
around EME. One clarification that I'd like to make regarding your
background information however:
[[
Ignoring (3) above for the moment, the prospective situation seems, as
Triplett [3] points out, to be broadly comparable to what we already
have with respect to the <object> tag and e.g. Flash or Quicktime:
videos embedded in <object> tags with the relevant
Adobe/Macromedia/Apple classids historically could only be played
using proprietary, non-open-source plugins.

As I understand it, Tim's argument (and that of other W3C staff,
including CEO Jeff Jaffe) depend essentially on that parallel.  They
amount to saying "We're just giving you the EME" (|| "we're just
giving you the object tag"), "if content owners use that functionality
to deliver (protected) content and users install the necessary CDM (||
proprietary plugins) to view it, that's a matter between consenting
adults and part of the Open Web".
]]

I do not believe that Tim or Jeff tried to draw a parallel with the
object tag in their respective blogs. Certainly there is a desire to
reduce the proprietary footprint in the Web stack and there is an open
question of whether or not EME helps enough, but neither Tim nor Jeff
have stated support for EME itself as a solution so far. The only
support that has been stated was for having work on content protection
in scope, as a consequence of the use case for premium content. And, by
content protection, it was never meant to reduce it to a mechanism that
would rely on a CDM. The use of "content protection" is meant to be
general and not force a technical approach. Effectively, EME adopts one
approach that will make use of CDMs but I'd like to reemphasize the fact
that EME has not been endorsed by Tim or Jeff. I do realize that, since
the HTML working group is working on EME, many people believe that the
W3C Director will endorse EME at the end but the option not to endorse
is still on the table. EME itself contains a list of issues in its
status and we're still interested in understanding the pros and the
cons. The discussion within the TAG can certainly help.

Philippe
Received on Thursday, 24 October 2013 20:57:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:22 UTC