Re: Formal objection to the marking of bug 21727 as invalid.

Fred,

The bug was not closed by the WG, but by Glenn.

As I mentioned in the bug there has previously been no support for the
three requirements you propose, though I have no objection to us
re-considering those proposals for a short while.

The questions of whether, by not adopting these requirements, we do or do
not break with historical precedent for the "open web" and whether, if we
do, that is a cause for concern are questions for the CG.

A pragmatic approach on your part would be just to raise these questions in
the CG. However if you wish to go through another round of consideration in
the WG, we can do that. I just don't expect a different outcome from the
last round of discussions of the same issue. You can re-open the bug, which
is usually the first step before jumping to a formal objection.

...Mark

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:

> I formally object to members of the HTML WG  marking bug 21727
> as invalid, see: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21727
>
> This bug adds use cases and requirements to the EME specification.
>
> The W3C has indicated that such work on the EME specification may proceed.
>
> The director of the W3C has also communicated that meta level discussion
> regarding the use cases and requirements of the EME specification is to
> occur in the Restricted Media Community Group and this group is not
> charted to have any standing to mark bugs at invalid.  Disagreement
> with use cases and requirements is a meta level issue, thus the HTML WG
> clearly has no standing to reject use cases and requirements on the
> EME specification.
>
> I demand that the HTML WG reopen bug 21727 and work to ensure that
> the EME specification meets the use case and requirements.
>
> cheers
> Fred
>
>