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

Re: EME and proprietary plug-ins

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:00:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCHraq1AhF+LV+BxhLvg37qJcCr1UmgDBN-sP9JYJUMfA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
>> EME poses the threat of unleveling the playing
>> field for browsers even within operating systems in addition to
>> keeping the playing field unlevel among operating systems.
> If unleveling means moving away from the status quo of using only
> Flash/Silverlight for distribution of protected media content, then you are
> correct.

You know what Henri means, and it's not that.  He means, very
obviously, that individual browsers may be locked out even on a given

> The issue of OS playing field is a non-issue.

Several people disagree.  I'm not sure why you think it's a non-issue,
or why you think it's *such* a non-issue that it can be dismissed
out-of-hand like that.  Producing technologies that will only be
usable on particular OSes is a bad thing.

> EME will enable new opportunities, while the status quo keeps content locked
> out from the web or locked into the Flash/Silverlight solutions.

The "new opportunities" are locking content into new plugins.  It's
not materially different from the status quo, and you shouldn't try to
pretend that it is.

Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 18:01:26 UTC

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