- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:00:33 -0800
- 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 OS. > 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. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 18:01:26 UTC