W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > February 2013

RE: EME FPWD CfC is closed

From: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:00:22 +0000
Message-ID: <BLU002-W33ADCF0817487DE72BD271AA0A0@phx.gbl>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>

> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:46:06 -0500
> From: rubys@intertwingly.net
> To: fredandw@live.com
> CC: public-html-admin@w3.org
> Subject: Re: EME FPWD CfC is closed
> On 02/11/2013 08:53 AM, Fred Andrews wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but there appear to be plans for another CfC soon
> > and this is the single most important decision in the history of the
> > web so I for one welcome discussion to continue.  The issue of DRM
> > goes way beyond just 'media' - a CDM could well implement an
> > entire HTML rendering engine.  I do not support your attempts
> > to quash discussion and or to sideline it into another mailing list.
> W3C Member level discussions typically happen in other locations.  One 
> such location is the Advisory Council.  If you sincerely want to effect 
> change at the W3C level, public-html-admin is not the place to have that 
> discussion.

The issue at hand has wider implications than most.  The discussion
started here, continues here, and is planned to return here.  I would
ask the Chairs to be tolerant in this special case.

The W3C are responsible for their own actions.  I really don't care
what they decide because if they support DRM then they no longer
matter as the good work will move elsewhere.  We are extending
them the courtesy of helping them understand the issues.
> We are not attempting to quash discussion or sideline it -- to the 
> contrary we are trying to get the discussion to occur where it has the 
> participation of all the stakeholders and can be the most effective.
> > Btw: what is Apple's official position regarding this CfC?  I feel
> > silly asking, but do not recall anyone from Apple stating that
> > Apple supports the CfC.
> We did not seek member company positions on this CfC.

The CfC did seek support and I note 15 businesses that have supported
the publishing of the EME as a FPWD, see:

Apple have a representatives on the Chairs of the HTML WG plus
representatives acting as cheerleaders for the pro-DRM case and it
seems fair to ask if they are speaking for themselves or for Apple?


Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 23:00:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:57:22 UTC