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

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

From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 02:51:35 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "Vickers, Mark" <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>, "<public-html-admin@w3.org>" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
Message-ID: <472B9966-52F5-4F03-B589-8AD53CEC59B9@netflix.com>

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 22, 2013, at 5:48 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Vickers, Mark
> <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>> The question at hand is not approving the spec, but to approve publishing the First Public Working Draft. The purpose of FPWD is to "signal to the community to begin reviewing the document." Public review is a cornerstone of our open process.
>> Based on the rich discussion from the CfC, it seems the community is ready for such a review. It would be great if we could focus the discussion on the specification particulars to understand in what cases changes can be made to fix issues and in what cases wholesale alternative proposals can be presented.
>> The alternative to publishing FPWD would likely be for this work to continue without such public review, which benefits no one.
>> So, I think all parties benefit by publishing FPWD and getting all the alternatives on the table.
> Working Draft is also the first meaningful status for a spec on the
> Rec track in the W3C.  Please don't pretend that it's nothing more
> than a formality, or merely a method of requesting review.  It also
> implicitly asserts that the HTMLWG and by extension the W3C is taking
> on the spec as a legitimate work item which it desires to send to
> completion.  This is a powerful messaging channel when communicating
> with the public - it's exciting when a draft upgrades from ED to FPWD!
> If we in the group don't feel the spec is appropriate to pursue at
> all, opposing publishing it is the appropriate means to do so.
> I would also appreciate it if you and others didn't imply that
> substantive changes would actually come out of public review.  All of
> the opposition in this and related threads was laid out with even
> greater force when this spec was first introduced, and it was ignored.


If I remember rightly I quite extensively responded to the points raised at that time and there was quite a long - shall we also say spirited ? - debate.

We may not have arrived at agreement, but it isn't fair to say that the points raised were ignored. Personally I changed my opinion on several aspects as a result of those discussions.

> Every aspect that was brought up as terrible and worthy of blocking
> the spec then are still present.  Your corporation's interests are not
> aligned with the goals of the open web, and pretending otherwise
> accomplishes nothing.

Well, aside from the fact that proposals should be addressed on their merits, and not your understanding of a particular corporations interests, it would clearly be a benefit to the competitors to the web (the various proprietary native app platforms) if a popular class of applications were excluded from the web, as you propose (considering also that plug-ins are on the way out). I accept that for you that downside weighs less heavily than other things, but it's not black-and-white.


> ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 02:52:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:57:21 UTC