Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

Sam Ruby wrote:

> Examining the objections related to the question as to whether the
> candidate FPWD contains enough information to be implemented
> interoperably, the chairs found that much of the input on this has
> lacked specifics, so at this time we are putting out a call for clear
> and specific bug reports to be filed against the Encrypted Media
> Extensions component in bugzilla[1] by February 15th.  Once that is
> complete, we will seek an recommendation by the EME editors on how to
> proceed with these bugs.
>

I'm not sure that taking discussion off-list into a bug is a good idea, but
I filed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20944 as requested.
If it's not clear and specific enough, please explain why so I can fix it.

There may be some questions/objections regarding the bug. Should I
preemptively address them in the bug, or in an email, or will there be a
chance to address them when/if they are made by the EME editors?

Thanks,
Rob
-- 
Wrfhf pnyyrq gurz gbtrgure naq fnvq, “Lbh xabj gung gur ehyref bs gur
Tragvyrf ybeq vg bire gurz, naq gurve uvtu bssvpvnyf rkrepvfr nhgubevgl
bire gurz. Abg fb jvgu lbh. Vafgrnq, jubrire jnagf gb orpbzr terng nzbat
lbh zhfg or lbhe freinag, naq jubrire jnagf gb or svefg zhfg or lbhe fynir
— whfg nf gur Fba bs Zna qvq abg pbzr gb or freirq, ohg gb freir, naq gb
tvir uvf yvsr nf n enafbz sbe znal.” [Znggurj 20:25-28]