Re: Removing EME persistent-usage-record "at risk" feature

> On Oct 27, 2016, at 5:14 AM, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> On 10/26/2016 9:10 PM, Mark Watson wrote:
>> My question, though, is whether EME V2 should take the form of a
>> completely new version of the specification that would (eventually)
>> replace the existing one​, or whether we should have a stand-alone
>> specification adding the "persistent-usage-record" session type. The
>> latter is hard to do without monkey-patching unless we introduce
>> explicit extension points.
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> here is what I would recommend we do:
>
> We don't touch the gh-pages branch. Instead, we create a V1 branch for
> now and use that one to remove whatever we need to.

Ok, so in this case the Editor's Draft at the normal
ED github link will still contain the feature and I suppose becomes
(de facto, but not officially) an ED of V2.

This is ok for me.

> If folks want to
> publish a separate Note for the removed feature, there will always be
> time to remove the feature from the gh-pages branch later on.

My hope is that the removed feature is standardized at a later time,
since I do not expect it will be that long before there are compliant
implementations (perhaps early next year).

...Mark
>
> Paul is ok with this so feel free to move forward if you'd like to.
>
> Philippe

Received on Thursday, 27 October 2016 15:54:59 UTC