n Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote: > >> I was responding to the thread of reasoning I thought I heard you making >> that said "EME would make the playing field less level than it already can >> be (and is) with Flash/SL." I don't believe that to be true, other than >> browsers that don't support EME. >> > > Apart from licensing, there is the technical issue that Henri raised which > has been ignored so far in this thread: there is a publicly defined API, > NPAPI, through which any browser can integrate Flash and Silverlight. There > is no such thing currently proposed for EME CDMs, so for that reason alone, > NPAPI plugins provide a more level playing field across browsers than EME > proposes to. > Heh. 1) If you take on supporting NPAPI. 2) Again, that's presuming that the content playing uses of Flash/SL never browser-test, which isn't true. NPAPI could be used for this purpose, I suppose. But honestly - Flash, at least, is a dog; no, the inevitable product of a dog (I *like* my dog. Too bad she piddles on the floor so much. Hey, the analogy works!) Flash-ripping aside, my point is that NPAPI was, to my knowledge, developed as a content-delivery format. The fact that, through a beastly plugin that just happens to be installed on an ever-decreasing number of desktop-only systems, be used most of the time to view "protected" content, isn't a real answer to the problem, certainly not going forward. Perhaps your answer is "don't protect, and then it all just works" - which is fine. Again, my opinions. I don't claim to know the perfect answers here, but I do have a pretty good idea that Flash/SL are a hacked and imperfect solution at best, and they are degrading over time. -C
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 23:16:55 UTC