- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 12:25:31 -0800
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > I think Philippe did answer your broader question, though not in much detail. He not only said that the work is in scope but also that it is appropriate for the HTML Working Group to work on extensions specs like the Encrypted Media Extensions specification," and that "the W3C Team do believe that use cases like premium content should be > addressed in the Open Web Platform in order to bring it to its full potential". This is also explicitly given as the position of the W3C Team as a whole. > > Thus, while not a lot of detail is given, the Chairs take this to say that the W3C Team believes this work is in scope for the W3C itself, consistent with the W3C's principles, and appropriate for the WG to pursue. We specifically asked the Team to weigh in, because we believe it's not appropriate for the HTML WG Chairs to rule on what is appropriate for the W3C as a whole. We have also asked the W3C Team to explicitly put this question to the Advisory Committee in the form of charter review, since that is the other body with authority over what work is in scope for the W3C itself. "Not a lot of detail is given" is an understatement, since the entirety of the wider W3C perspective was limited to the single sentence: "While the W3C Team do believe that use cases like premium content should be addressed in the Open Web Platform in order to bring it to its full potential, we're also looking forward for the HTML Working Group to address any technical concerns raised against the EME draft." This sentence does not address any of the issues that have been brought up by multiple HTMLWG members about how the EME spec violates the W3C's principles and our spirit, as shown through our history of work. It's an empty statement of preference with no details. > I recommend that further discussion on this point should proceed via the AC or otherwise be taken up directly with the W3C Team. Given that my company officially supports the publication of this draft, I am unclear as to how I can participate in any further discussion via the AC. The W3C Team seems to be ignoring the concerns stated by multiple HTMLWG members, if PLH's message is taken at face value. ~TJ
Received on Saturday, 9 February 2013 20:26:20 UTC