Re: Netflix claims that EME is a W3C specification

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Mat Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com> wrote:

>
> On Apr 16, at 11:21 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 2:33 AM, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>wrote:
>
>> Netflix now publicly writes about "The W3C Encrypted Media Extensions
>> specification":
>> http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.html
>>
>> I think that this is inappropriate / incorrect. The EME document is only
>> an Editor's Draft and Netflix knows that there was and is not even
>> consensus to publish it as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD).
>>
>
> That's because IT IS a W3C specification. The phrase "W3C specification"
> is widely used to refer to a document being developed in the W3C for
> possibly eventual publishing. It implies nothing about the status of the
> document. You have been told this before, so I'm not sure what your point
> is.
>
>
> If it’s a matter of semantic misunderstanding and not a conscious effort
> to frame this as adhering to an established standard, perhaps some text
> should be added to the post clarifying that the EME extension specification
> is not currently proceeding along any standards track? It certainly reads
> that way to me, as I’m sure it will to a number of readers who aren’t
> following the topic closely—it may come across as misleading.
>

But this is incorrect. EME IS in fact proceeding along the well established
W3C REC track. In particular, it is actively being developed in the HTML WG
and implemented by a number of browser vendors, bugs are being processed
and resolved, and it is expected to be published as a FPWD once the current
bugs have been adequately addressed.

To use the language of the W3C Process document [1], EME is presently a
Work in Progress and the HTML WG intends to advance it to Recommendation.

The HTML WG chairs and W3C team have stated a number of times that this
work is consistent with the WG charter and goals of the members.

Regarding the fact that certain parties object to this work, there is a
well defined process for managing dissent [2] and formal objections [3].
The chairs have more than once repeated the process document's statement
that "Dissenters cannot stop a group's work simply by saying that they
cannot live with a decision."

In conclusion, there is nothing inconsistent about referring to EME as a
"W3C specification".

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/process.html#managing-dissent
[3]
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/process.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews